Shelf No. JgxT

STACKS

Register No...

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

IN
ITS DOCTRINAL EXPRESSION

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

IN ITS DOCTRINAL EXPRESSION

By
EDGAR YOUNG MULLINS, D. D., LL. D.

President and Professor of Theology in

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Louisville, Ky.

Author of

"Why is Christianity True? " "The Axioms of Religion," " Freedom

and Authority in Religion," " The Life in Christ," " Commentary

on Ephesians and Colossians," " Baptist Beliefs," etc.

ROGER WILLIAMS PRESS

PHILADELPHIA

BOSTON ST. LOUIS LOS ANGELES

CHICAGO NEW YORK TORONTO

Copyright 1917 by
EDGAR YOUNG MULLINS

Published September, 1917

1 C 1 / 9 f 7 ''; o/
I 5 I / y 6 / y

QTo

THE MEMORY OF

3lamra JJrtiijiru IBiwrr,

GREAT ADMINISTRATOR AND TEACHER OF THEOLOGY,

WHOSE INSPIRING VISION

OF THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION FOR SOUTHERN BAPTISTS
MADE POSSIBLE THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,

THIS VOLUME IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
BY HIS GRATEFUL PUPIL AND SUCCESSOR IN OFFICE.

PREFACE

SEVERAL reasons have led the writer to prepare the present work
on theology. He has been a teacher of the subject during the
past eighteen years. His own method and standpoint in dealing
with truth have, as a natural consequence, taken definite form.
Theology is like any other science in the fact that if it is alive,
it grows. This does not mean that it goes beyond Christ and
the New Testament. It means, rather, that these are provocative
of endless growth. The object of religion does not grow, but the
subject never attains a final and static stage in the present life.
Truth does not change, but we apprehend truth with increasing
clearness.

Down to the middle of the nineteenth century, after Luther's
age, theology was engaged chiefly with the issues growing out of
the Reformation. The method of theology was that derived
from a past age. Theologies were comprehensive, more or less
philosophical and abstract treatises. There was a very com
mendable desire to systematize the truths of Christianity. But
too often the biblical method and aim were sacrificed in the in
terest of a " school " of theology or a philosophical principle.
For example, Arminianism overlooked certain essential truths
about God in its strong championship of human freedom. As
against it, Calvinism ran to extremes in some of its conclusions
in its very earnest desire to safeguard the truth of God's sover
eignty. We are learning to discard both names and to adhere
more closely than either to the Scriptures, while retaining the
truth in both systems.

During the nineteenth century the whole world of human
thought underwent a remarkable revolution. In physical science
a new method and ideal arose. In the social and economic
sphere a new sociology and political economy took shape. In
psychology a new method of study created an entirely new litera-

[vii]

Preface

ture. In philosophy all the issues were restated in new forms,
and new schools of thought arose. It was inevitable that these
changes in human thought should introduce new issues and new
crises in theology. Many looked upon the changes with fear and
trembling lest the foundations be destroyed. Schleiermacher,
at the beginning of the century, had already anticipated the need
for a change in the method of dealing with religious truth. The
remarkable system of Ritschl was a logical outcome of the impact
of the new ways of looking at things upon the older ways of
theology. As a system it had fatal weaknesses, and is now
a waning force. But it is a notable landmark, indicating a par
ticular crisis in the history of theology.

We are at length coming to see all things in a new perspective.
Several things are entirely clear. One is that none of the ulti
mate facts of man's spiritual life has been destroyed by any
development in recent times. Methods have changed. New
issues have arisen. Old issues have assumed new forms. New
statements of truth are required. But Christ remains the same
" yesterday, to-day, and forever." The gospel remains. The best
historical and critical methods of Bible study have given us clearer
views of Christ and doctrine. We appreciate better than we
ever did God's great wisdom and love in revealing himself grad
ually to mankind. This is made clear to us in the Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments. We have better methods of
employing the Scriptures in proof of doctrines. We have learned
to recognize that religion is a form of knowledge; that the spir
itual universe is the greatest of all realities; that Christ is to
day the spiritual Creator in an ongoing civilization. Along with
this we have learned that our religion is capable of clear and
scientific exposition, and that new and stronger proofs of its
truth and finality are possible. The gospel of Christ, not in an
attenuated form, so reduced as to be scarcely recognizable, but
with all its vital elements intact, is at home in the modern world
and has nothing to fear from any form of sound learning. The
author trusts that in some measure these truths may be made
clear in the following pages.

F viii 1

Preface

It has been felt that the ends of clearness and readableness could
be best attained by the use of language as untechnical and
simple as possible. Some phases of theology are inherently dif
ficult. But for the most part the author believes the reader will
not find the book difficult to understand.

Primarily, the book has been written for use as a manual
in -the classroom. But the general reader has also been kept
in mind. Care has been taken to avoid too many divisions and
subdivisions. Overanalysis does not make a very attractive-
looking page nor add to the interest of the reader. The analytical
table of contents will help those who wish a brief summary of
any particular section of the discussion.

It is impossible for the author to indicate, even in a general
way, his indebtedness to other writers. Innumerable books on
all phases of the subject have been read or consulted. Biblical
Theologies, Systematic Theologies, Theologies of Christian Ex
perience, Psychologies, Philosophies of Religion, and books on
Comparative Religion and in other departments, have been placed
under tribute. Occasionally these have been referred to in a foot
note. But it has been impossible to do so in all instances. The
author desires to express his appreciation of valuable suggestions
based on a careful reading of the manuscript from a former
student who is professor of theology in the Southwestern Baptist
Theological Seminary at Forth Worth, Texas— Rev. W. T. Con
ner, D. D.

E. Y. M.

[ix

CONTENTS

PAGES

CHAPTER I. RELIGION AND THEOLOGY i-34

I. TWOFOLD AIM, 1-12. Necessary connections between re
ligion and theology. Definition of theology. Reasons for
definitions. Use in departments of theology. Emphasis upon
experience. Not sole criterion of truth. Scriptures. Chris
tianity as a religion. Experiential method not less biblical
or systematic. Four factors: Christ, the Scriptures, Holy
Spirit, existence. Combination of these. Advantages: I. Es
capes false intellectualism. 2. Gives fact basis for theology.

3. Supplies best apologetic foundation. Illustrated: (i) In
proofs of God's existence; (2) Miracles; (3) Deity of Christ.

4. Shows reality, autonomy, and freedom of Christianity.

5. Helps define nature of the authority of the Bible. Objec
tions and replies.

II. MODERN WAYS OF REGARDING RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, 12-18.
i. Comte's view. Reply. 2. Theory of the utility of religion.
Answer. 3. Mysticism. Reply. 4. Judgments of value. Goes
too far. More than judgments of value needed. 5- RC~
ligion without theology. Reply: (i) Man's nature as reason
able; (2) Nature of experience; (3) We know in part; (4)
Theology necessary to defend religion; (5) And to propagate
it. 6. Theology merged in history. Objections.

III. CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE AND REVELATION, 18-22. Two
groups of facts. Only understood in their relations. Meaning
of experience. Charge of subjectivism. Antecedent prob
ability. Religion not one-sided. Revelation, God's answer.
Three phases of revelation: i. Jesus Christ; 2. Christ in the
soul; 3. Inward conditions. Revelation based on facts.
Methods of evasion.

IV. NEED FOR A PERSONAL SELF-REVELATION OF GOD, 22-24.
Why personal? i. Personality only adequate medium. 2.
Saves from subjectivism. 3. Revelation in deed most power
ful. 4. Produces necessary results in man's spirit.

V. THEOLOGY AND TRUTH, 24-26. Theology a form of knowl
edge, i. Scriptures show it. 2. Christian experience. 3. The
ology is a science. Reality present. 4. Denial based on false
theory of knowledge. 5. Religious knowledge takes the form
required by religion. All higher personal life satisfied.

[xi]

Contents

PAGES

VI. CONCLUDING TOPICS OF PRELIMINARY SURVEY, 26-34.
Sources of theology; material and formal principles; arrange
ment of doctrines ; qualifications for study, i. Sources : Chris
tian religion; all factors; Christ; Holy Spirit; Scriptures;
experience of the redeemed; other sources. 2. Material and .
formal principles : statement of these. 3. Arrangement of
doctrine. Proofs of God's existence. Trinity. Scriptures.
Christian and other forms of knowledge. Subjects of chap
ters. 4. Qualifications for the study of theology. Religious
attitude, (i) Scholarship and culture. (2) Intellectual en
dowments generally. (3) Moral and spiritual qualities.

CHAPTER II. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD 35-48

Preliminary questions.

I. DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND OF RELIGION, 35-38. Of
knowledge. Importance for theology. Of religion. Methods
employed. Five points in definition.

II. SOURCES OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, 38-48. i. Inference
from nature and man. Unsatisfactory, a-e. 2. Facts of con
sciousness. Must rise to Christian standpoint. 3. Comparative
religion. Its value. 4. Ecclesiastical courts and councils.
Second-hand knowledge. 5. The Bible. Supreme literary
source. Spiritual transaction necessary. 6. Revelation of God
in Christ: (i) Christ as historic person; New Testament
record, a-d. (2) Christ superhistoric, a-y. Conclusion.

CHAPTER III. PRELIMINARY STUDY OF CHRISTIAN EX
PERIENCE 49-81

I. Six ASSUMPTIONS, 49, 50. Fundamental to all thought.
Christian experience a transaction between God and man.

II. THE ANALYSIS OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE, 50-54- Divine

initiative, i. Point of contact. 2. Response of sinner. Two
acts. 3. Divine activity. Forgiveness. Justification. Regen
eration. Adoption. Conversion.

III. THE SYNTHETIC UNITY OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE, 54-56.

Unitary nature of experience. Likeness between God and
man. Consequences. Synthesis must be combined with analy
sis of experience. Parts understood only in light of the
whole.

IV. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE, 56-60.
The self. Various aspects. Struggle and conflict. Four stages
in unfolding of the self. Response of the gospel. Restored

[xii]

Contents

PAGES

relationship. Question as to the subconscious. Varieties in
Christian experience. Types of personality. Universal ele
ments.

V. THE NATURAL AND THE REGENERATE CONSCIOUSNESS, 60-63.

Discrimination necessary. Difficult for the unconverted.
Christian's account of the change: i. Failure of the natural
self. 2. Gospel call. 3. New power from without. 4. Three
new elements in consciousness, a-c.

VI. THE TRANSITION FROM THE NATURAL TO THE REGENERATE

STATE, 63, 64. Not by natural forces.

VII. OBJECTIONS, 64-67. i. Intellectual objection. Reply.
2. Moral objections. Renunciation, etc. Answer. Elements of
doubt become elements of certainty. Intellectual superiority
not claimed.

VIII. HOW KNOWLEDGE ARISES IN CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE,

67, 68. Recall presuppositions. Realities given. Mind active.
Ordinary principle of knowledge involved. Doctrinal system
thus arises.

IX. ELEMENTS OF KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE, 68-
72. i. Power from without. 2. Spiritual. 3. Redemptive. 4.
Personal. Recognition of another. Power not below the per
sonal. If above, retains personal elements. Fact basis for
claim as to personal object in religion. 5. Religious object is
triune. Transcendent objects of faith. We know God as
Father, Son, and Spirit in experience. Great creeds. Ob
jections usually metaphysical.

X. THE CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE AND THE CHRISTIAN CER
TAINTY, 72-75. Nature of the certainty: i. Negatively. Not
mathematical proof. 2. Positively. Facts of consciousness.
Enabling power. 3. Question of degrees of certainty. As
to Christ. Elements of knowledge. Unity of experience.

XI. OBJECTIONS TO THE CHRISTIAN CERTAINTY, 75-81. i. Does
not compel assent. Reply. 2. Standard narrow. Reply. 3.
Criterion subjective. Reply. 4. Anthropomorphic basis. Re
ply. 5. Unfair. Reply.

CHAPTER IV. CHRISTIAN AND OTHER FORMS OF KNOWL
EDGE 82-136

How is Christian related to other knowledge? General re
ply. Departments of knowledge.

I. PHYSICAL SCIENCE, 83-86. Agreements and differences,
a-c. Alleged disinterestedness of physical science. Professor

Contents

Haering. Statement needs modifying. I. Absence of interest
mistaken conception. 2. Scientific material different. 3. Scien
tist and religious man both devoted to truth.

II. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 86-90. i. Vindicates the
spiritual view of man. 2. Emphasizes the varieties of religious
experience. Normal and abnormal types. 3. Shows the preva
lence of law in the religious life. 4. Shows divine energy
in conversion, a-c.

III. THE RELATION OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE TO ETHICS, QI-

94. Christian experience deeply ethical, i. Ethical ideal at
beginning. 2. Solves problem of theoretical ethics. 3. Leads
to higher ethical level. 4. Reveals new ethical method.

IV. CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION, 94-
103. Results of scientific study of religion, a-e. Question of
origin. Christianity fulfils the religious ideals. Object of
worship determines character of a religion. Progress in
religion: I. Gods tend to become more personal. 2. More
ethical. 3. Growth of idea of revelation. 4. Recognition of
pnrposiveness and providence, a-c. 5. Advance in idea of re
demption. 6. So also idea of atonement. 7. Immanence and
transcendence perfectly expressed. Summary of preceding,
a-f. Conclusions from the study of comparative religion.

V. CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY, 103-
107. Meaning of the word. Points of emphasis in modern
philosophy: Experience. Truth. Reality. Unity. Philos
ophies go astray when they fail to give adequate recognition
to these.

VI. MODERN WORLD- VIEWS, 108-121. i. Agnosticism. State
ment. Objections. 2. Materialism. Statement. Objections,
(O-(3)- 3- Idealism. Statement. How far tenable and un
tenable, (i), (2). 4. Personalism. Statement. Arguments.
Fact basis. First and final causes. Knowledge. Freedom.
Physical nature, (i)-(5). God's relations to universe, (i)-
(4) ; God in history, a-f. An impersonal universe. Three
evil results. General conclusion.

VII. PERSONALISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM, 122-136. Rela
tion to monism, a-f. The proofs of God's existence : i. Cos-
mological argument. Reenforced by experience, (i)-(4). 2.
Teleological argument. Objections and replies. Argument
restated. Evidence of design, (i)-(4). 3. Anthropological
argument. 4. Ontological argument, (i)-(4). 5. Moral argu
ment, (i)-(3). Conclusion: i. Older proofs reenforced by
Christian experience. 2. Proofs given exhaust spheres of
reality. 3. Charge of subjectivism.

Contents

PAGES

CHAPTER V. REVELATION I37-I53

Introductory statement, 137, 138. Fundamental facts.
Biblical writers.

I. OPPOSING VIEWS, 138-140. i. Agnostic. 2. Pantheistic.
3. Natural religion.

II. CONTENTS OF REVELATION, 140-142. i. God making
himself known. 2. A spiritual transaction. 3. Rooted in the
people's life and needs. 4. Evokes man's active response.

III. THE RECORD OF REVELATION, 142-144. The Scriptures.
Two methods of approach. Process. Results, i. Psy
chological distinctions. 2. Theories of inspiration, a. Short
comings of theories. Biblical and experiential method.
b. Bible contains best answer.

IV. DISTINGUISHING MARKS OF BIBLICAL REVELATION, 145-
153. i. Historical and experiential. 2. Regenerative and
morally transforming. 3. Genetic. 4. Gradual and progres
sive, a-c. 5. Unitary and purposive. 6. Congruous with
man's intellectual and religious life. 7. Supernatural. 8. Suf
ficient, certain, and authoritative. Errors to be avoided.

CHAPTER VI. THE SUPREME REVELATION : JESUS

CHRIST 154-166

I. CHRIST THE KEY TO SCRIPTURE, 154-164. Experience
brings us close to early Christians. New Testament witness
to Christ, i. Synoptic Gospels, (i) Humanity of Christ.
(2) Messianic calling. (3) Sinlessness. (4) Unique relation
to God. (5) Unique relation to man. 2. Book of Acts.
3. Teachings of Paul and John. Summary of New Testament
teachings, (i)-(4).

II. JESUS CHRIST IN MODERN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, 164-166.

Affirmations : Revealer of God. Social and church relations
through him. He is Lord. He is the key to doctrine.

CHAPTER VII. THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST 167-202

I. A NECESSARY ARTICLE OF FAITH, 167-169. ReaSOHS I I. He

works divine result. 2. Great intuitions involved. 3. Unifies
the evidence. 4. Social redemption. 5. Historical continuity.

II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS CONFIRMING THE ABOVE, 169-
176. i. Christ makes known personality of God. 2. Higher
continuity of world thus explained. 3. Christ reveals God
in act. 4. Completes man's religious life. 5. Completes ideas
of world, man, God, religion, (i)-(4). Recapitulation.

[XV]

Contents

PAGES

III. HUMAN AND DIVINE ELEMENTS IN CHRIST, 176-180.
Early attempts to explain Christ's person: Ebionites. Do-
cetae. Arians. Appollinarians. Nestorians. Eutychians.
Council at Chalcedon. Chief requirement. Two-nature con
ception. Its difficulty. Possible attitudes toward efforts to
define Christ's person.

IV. THE PREEXISTENCE OF THE DIVINE SON, 180-182. I. New

Testament teaching. 2. Not ideal preexistence. 3. Necessary
presupposition. 4. Divine Son; transcended current philos
ophy. 5- Christ's work unified.

V. THE DIVINE SELF-EMPTYING, 182-187. i. A ^//-emptying.
2. Creation and self-limitation. 3. So also incarnation; in
finite resources of grace. 4. Fatherhood and sonship essential
in God. 5. Not putting off of divine attributes. Kenotic
theories. 6. Helpful analogies. 7. God's answer to man's
search.

VI. STAGES IN THE REASCENT OF CHRIST, 187-190. His life
in real human conditions. Laws of growth; this an element
of perfection. Intellectual, moral, and Messianic factors.
Eternal relation to God involved. Dorner's view of gradual
incarnation. Principle of life through death.

VII. OBJECTIONS, 190-195. i. Based on unity of God. Re
ply. 2. Finite and infinite. Reply. 3. Mystery. Reply.
4. Modern thought. Reply, (i)-(3).

VIII. RIVAL THEORIES, 195-202. i. Humanitarian Christ. 2.
Man filled with divine presence, (i)-(3). 3. Ideal preexis
tence. Reply. 4. Sanday's theory. Reply, (i)-(4). 5. The
Ritschlian theory. Reply.

CHAPTER VIII. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY . . 203-213

I. THE HOLY SPIRIT, 203-205. i. Old Testament teachings,
(i)-(8). 2. In New Testament, (i)-(6). 3. Summary,
(i)-(4).

II. THE TRINITY, 205-210. i. Statements preliminary to
discussion of Trinity. 2. Immanent and economic Trinity.
Proofs of immanent Trinity, (i)-(3). 3. Inferences from
God as thinking, willing, and loving personal being.

III. THE PRACTICAL RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

THE TRINITY, 2io, 2ii. As to God, Christ, Holy Spirit, be
lievers.

IV. OBJECTIONS, 211-213. Ethnic trinities. Reply. Self-
contradictoriness of doctrine. Reply. Unthinkable. Reply.
Metaphysical doctrine. Reply.

[xvil

Contents

PAGES

CHAPTER IX. THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST . . 214-250

Why discussion of doctrine of God was reserved to present.

I. DEFINITION OF GOD, 214-216. Analysis, (i)-(7). Ob
jections to briefer definitions.

II. THE CHRISTIAN DEFINITION, 216-222. i. God is Spirit.
2. God is a person: (i) Inferred. (2) Objections and re
plies. 3. God is living. 4. Supreme personal spirit. 5- Word
infinite. 6. God is one. 7. Words absolute and unconditioned.

III. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD, 222-250. Various classifica
tions, i. Natural attributes: (i) Self-existence. (2) Im
mutability. (3) Omnipresence. (4) Immensity. (5) Eter
nity. (6) Omniscience, a. Method, b. Extent, c. Questions
as to necessity and free choice. (7) Omnipotence, a. How
manifested, b. Unexhausted, c. Limitations self-imposed.
2. Moral attributes: (i) Holiness, a. Old and New Testa
ment meaning, b. Other moral qualities grounded in holiness.
(2) Righteousness, a. Meaning as applied to men. b. Man
datory, punitive, redemptive, c. Grounded in God's nature,
(a)-(c). (3) Love. a. Grounded in God's nature, b. De
sires good of object, c. Desires to possess object, d. Acts in
behalf of object, (a)-(c). e. Is manifested in various ways.
/. Inclusive of mankind, (a), (6). (4) Truth. Practical
considerations, a. God's personality manifest, b. Error gets
meaning, c. Element of knowledge in faith, d. Element of
doctrine inevitable. 3. The attributes and the divine per
sonality. God a unitary being. Errors to be avoided : ( i )
Merging all in one. (2) Making one superior. Discussion as
to righteousness and love: a. Prominence in Scriptures.
b. Question as to conscience, c. Question as to option and
obligation, d. Attribute of being, or of action, e. Question as
to a norm. /. Relative place in the atonement. (3) Thinking
of attributes in conflict. (4) Arbitrary action of will.

CHAPTER X. CREATION 251-264

I. DEFINITION, 251-253. Science and religion. New crea
tures in Christ. Purpose implied in development hypothesis.
Logic and philosophy. Summary in five points.

II. OPPOSING VIEWS, 253-255. i. Matter eternal. Reply.
2. Dualism. Reply. 3. Emanation. Reply. 4. Eternal crea
tion. Reply.

III. THE CREATION OF MAN, 255-262. Man the crown, i.
Physical and spiritual being. Discussion as to body of
man. 2. The connecting link of universe. 3. Man spiritual.

[ xvii ]

Contents

PAGES

4. Created in God's image, (i) As rational. (2) As moral.
(3) As having emotions. (4) As having will. (5) As free.
(6) Originally sinless. (7) Dominion over animals. (8)
Immortality. Proofs of immortality, a. Inferred from pro
gressive creation, b. Universal belief, c. Psychology, d. Phe
nomenon of death, e. Inequalities of life. /. Capacity for
growth. Biblical teachings, a. Old Testament b. New
Testament, c. Religious experience.
IV. ORIGIN OF SOULS, 262-264. Theories, i. Preexistence.

2. Immediate creation. 3. Traducianism.

CHAPTER XL PROVIDENCE 265-280

I. DEFINITION, 265-276. God's preservation of the world.
Immanence and transcendence. Truths contained in definition:
I. Divine purpose. 2. Divine sovereignty. 3. Physical and
moral law. 4. Human freedom. 5. Unity of the race. 6. Care
of individuals as well as the race. 7. Miracles, (i )-(?).
8. Prayer, (i)-(6). 9. Pain and suffering.

II. ANGELS, 276-280. Unwarranted assumptions. Biblical
teachings, i. Angels assumed. 2. Little said as to origin.

3. Teachings as to office. 4. Angel of the Covenant. 5. Satan
and the fall of angels. 6. Satan chief of evil spirits. 7. Cause
of the fall of angels.

CHAPTER XII. SIN 281-302

Providence takes account of sin.

I. THE ORIGIN OF SIN, 281-285. Dilemma against theism.
Reply. Theories: i. Material body of man. Reply. 2. Sin
negative, due to finiteness or ignorance. Reply. 3. Due to
creation of free beings. Genesis account, (i) Little light on
sin prior to man. (2) Man created morally free. (3) Moral
dignity of man in part explains sin. (4) Opportunity for
God. (5) Opportunity for man.

II. CHRIST'S NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE
HUMAN RACE, 285-288. Source, medium, and goal of creation,
i. Explains conscience and religious instinct. 2. Danger of
substituting the natural for the spiritual relation. 3. Illus
trated in case of infants. 4. Natural relation the precondition
of the spiritual.

III. THE BIBLICAL TEACHING AS TO SIN, 288-294. Sin as
selfishness, as lack of conformity to law, as moral disposition,
as rupture of relations with personal God. i. Old Testa
ment teachings, (i)-(3>. 2. New Testament teaching. Want

[ xviii ]

Contents

PAGES

of fellowship. Sinful motive. Christ's character, (i) With
Jesus all are sinners and lost. (2) Fourth Gospel. (3) Paul.
Flesh. Dead in sins. Law. Deliverance through Christ.
Source of sin in Adam.

IV. THE CONSEQUENCES OF SIN, 294-299. i. Sin universal.
Total depravity. Its true meaning. Human ability and in
ability. " Natural " and " moral " ability. 2. Guilt and penalty.
a. Guilt defined, b. Penalty defined, c. Question as to nature
and object of penalty. Divergent theories, d. Chief penalty
death. Physical death. Relation to penalty, e. Spiritual
death. Eternal death.

V. SOLUTION OF SIN PROBLEM THROUGH CHRISTIAN EXPERI
ENCE, 299, 300. Stages in the process.

VI. OBJECTIONS TO THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SIN, 300-302.
Moral system arraigned. Reply. Salvation of infants, and
heredity. Reply.

CHAPTER XIII. THE SAVING WORK OF CHRIST 303-337

I. THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST, 303, 304. As prophet.

As priest. As king. These inseparable.

II. THE ATONEMENT, 304-306. Why a central doctrine.
Variety in forms of representation. Many theories of atone
ment. Why defective. " Fact " as opposed to " theory " of
atonement. Reply.

III. REVIEW OF THEORIES, 306-310. i. Ransom to Satan
theory. Reply. 2. Theory of Anselm. 3. Grotius. 4. Socinian
theory. 5. Moral influence theory- 6. Variations: McLeod
Campbell, Maurice. 7. Eternal act of God.

IV. GENERAL PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS AS TO THE BIBLICAL
DOCTRINE, 310-313. i. All phases of teaching necessary. 2.
Avoid abstract method. 3. Must study the facts involved.
4. Conception of law in Paul's writing must be understood.

V. BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT, 313-319. i. The
motive of the atonement. 2. The end, (i)-(3). 3. The atone
ment defined. As means to the end, it involved: (i) Christ's
identification with the race. (2) Life of obedience. (3) Sub
jection of Christ to the operation of the law of sin and death.

VI. ATONEMENT AND THE DIVINE IMMANENCE, 320, 321.
Means of becoming immanent in man. Descent of moral ideal
through Christ. Gift of Holy Spirit. Mystical union.

VII. VITAL AND LEGAL ELEMENTS IN ATONEMENT, 322-330.
Legal elements explained. Atonement expression of law.

[ xix 1

Contents

PAGES

Element of law. Series of questions and answers. I. How
a satisfaction of law? Reply, (i)-(4). 2. In what sense
penal? 3. Did Christ endure divine wrath? 4. In what sense
a propitiation? 5. Was it substitutionary? Fact and prin
ciple of substitution: (i) Fact. Not merely question of
Greek prepositions. Christ's work representative or substi
tutionary. Various New Testament passages. Old Testament
teachings. (2) The principle of substitution. In relation:
a. to personality; b. to morality; c. to Christian experience;
d. to Christ's original relation to the race.

VIII. THE GODWARD AND MANWARD REFERENCE OF THE ATONE
MENT, 330-337. I. The Godward. Not only law, government,
honor involved, but also the divine nature as righteous love.
Necessity in God. Two objections. 2. Manward reference,
(i)-(3). Attributes of God in atonement. Extent of the
atonement. Intercession of Christ.

CHAPTER XIV. ELECTION: GOD'S INITIATIVE IN SALVA
TION 338-358

I. SOVEREIGNTY, 338-340. Predestination and election.
Fundamental fact : " In the beginning God." Errors to be
avoided: i. As to sovereignty. 2. As to limited atonement.

3. As to divine initiative.

II. GOD'S PURPOSE TOWARD MANKIND, 340-342. Four state
ments: I. God's gracious purpose racial. 2. Favor to the
world through Israel. 3. Atonement of world-wide purpose.

4. New Testament history and teaching show universality of
grace. Five conclusions.

III. THE SALVATION OF INDIVIDUALS, 342-353. Series of
questions: i. Are men chosen because of foreseen faith?
Reply. 2. Does God coerce the will or leave it free? Reply,
O)-(3)- 3- Can we reconcile sovereignty and freedom?
Reply. 4. Can we assign reasons for God's method? Reply.

5. Was there a fairer method? Reply. 6. Is God seeking to
save as few or as many as possible? Reply, (i)-(5). 7. Can
we discover any guiding principle in election? Reply.

IV. OBJECTIONS, 353-358. i. Makes God partial. Reply.
2. Involves insincerity in gospel invitation. Reply. 3. God
does not desire salvation of all. Reply. 4. Election cuts the
nerve of endeavor. 5. It involves profound mystery. Neces
sity of proclaiming universal gospel. 6. Hardening the heart,
(i)-(4).

[ xx ]

Contents

PAGES

CHAPTER XV. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN
LIFE

I. THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SALVATION, 359-365.

1. In relation to God. 2. In relation to Christ, (i)-(3). 3. In
relation to the human spirit. Things that are clear: three
points. 4. In relation to the means of grace. Why means
of grace, (i)-(3)-

II. THE BEGINNINGS OF SALVATION, 365-368. I. Calling.
Universal. Sincere. 2. Conviction. Work of Spirit. Mean
ing of convict. Refers to Christ, a-c. A caution.

III. THE ORDER OF SALVATION, 368-385. i. Repentance.
Meaning of word. Man's whole nature acts, (i)-(3). How
produced. Additional statements. 2. Faith. Central place
in Scripture. Three elements. Relation of faith to the Chris
tian life, (i)-(9). 3. Conversion. Meaning of word. 4. Re
generation. Definition. Scripture teaching. Details em
phasized negatively, (i)-(7). Positive statements, (i)-(3).

IV. REGENERATION IN ITS LARGER RELATIONS, 385-389. i. Re
generation and the idea of God. 2. Regeneration and revela
tion. 3. Regeneration and Christ's person. 4. Regeneration
and the Holy Spirit. 5. Regeneration and other doctrines.
6. Regeneration and final causes. 7. Regeneration and prob
lems of philosophy, (i)-(3). 8. Regeneration and the prob
lem of knowledge.

V. JUSTIFICATION, 389-401. I. Definition. Five points em
phasized. 2. Why is justification by faith? Reply. 3. The
relation of justification to Christian experience. Need for
free response of man to God : ( i ) Evil tendencies without
it. (2) Nothing else can take its place. 4. An objection to
the doctrine. Forensic salvation. Reply. Abstract method.
Detailed answer, (i)-(4). Are we conscious of justifica
tion?

VI. ADOPTION AND SONSHIP, 401-409. Two groups of pas
sages. Theories as to sonship: i. All sons of God. Reply.

2. Only the redeemed in Christ. 3. God father of all, but all
not sons. Reply. 4. All sons, but not all spiritual sons. Reply.
5. All constituted for sonship, but become real sons only in
new birth. Arguments in support of the view. Sons by faith
and adoption. Faith the condition of sonship. Traits and
blessings of the sons of God.

VII. UNION WITH CHRIST, 409-416. Phrase sums up pre
ceding. i. Teachings of Scripture as to union with Christ.
Figurative expressions. Nature of the union : Vital. Moral,

Contents

PAGES

Spiritual. Personal. Inscrutable. Abiding. 2. Consequences
of our union with Christ, (i) Identity with him in relation
to God. (2) In his relations to the race. (3) To sin and
death. (4) His identity with us in our earthly experiences.

CHAPTER XVI. THE CONTINUANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN

LIFE 4I7-438

I. SANCTIFICATION, 417-432. i. General survey. Meaning
of word, (i) Old and New Testament teachings. (2)
Vitally related to other spiritual facts: faith, justification,
regeneration, work of Spirit. (3) Attainment of moral char
acter through struggle. Three sources of opposition. (4) A
gradual process. Growth never ceases. (5) The agent and
means. Holy Spirit. Truth the chief means of sanctification.

2. Moral ideal in sanctification. Individual and social ideal,
(i) Individual ideal in outline. (2) Social ideal in outline.
The family. Slavery. The state. Economic problems. War.

3. Wrong views as to sanctification: (i) The antinomian.
Reply. (2) Perfectionist view. Reply, a-e. Conclusion : five
points.

II. PERSEVERANCE, 432-438. Question involved, i. Two ten
dencies in theology. 2. New Testament avoids both dangers.
Must unify New Testament teachings. Groups of passages.
Threefold conclusion. 3. God's method moral and personal.
Exposition explains many difficulties.

CHAPTER XVII. LAST THINGS 439-5^3

I. CYCLE OF IDEAS IN THEOLOGY COMPLETED, 439, 440. Back
ward glance over ground covered. God's working purposive.
It moves toward a goal.

II. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS, 440-458. i. Can we dispense
with a doctrine of the future? Various denials as to im
mortality, and the replies, (i)-(4). 2. What were the sources
of the eschatology of Jesus? Originality of Jesus and con
tact with other sources, (i) Old Testament teachings. Not
a complete picture of the future. Summary. (2) Jewish
eschatology. 3. Can we dispense with the outward form of
the eschatological teaching? Cannot eliminate the apocalyp
tic element, (i) Cautions. (2) Eschatological events in his
torical realization. (3) Resurrection of Christ an apocalyptic
stage. (4) Second Coming. (5) Christianity with historical
beginning and consummation. (6) Judgment. (7) Summary:
Fundamental question is one of a self-consistent Christianity.

F xxii ]

Contents

4. What is the relation between the present and the future of
the kingdom? Both elements are present. Difficulty in the
language of Jesus. Direct and simple method of interpreting
these passages. Points of the interpretation, (i)-(4). Gos
pel of John supplements synoptic Gospels. Principles rather
than events. Combine both groups of teachings. Conclusion :
four points.

III. DEATH OF THE BODY, 458, 459. Separation of soul and
body. Christian hope includes victory over death.

IV. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE, 459-462. Scripture teaching
meager, but clear. Hades and Sheol. I. The righteous dead,
(i)-(6). 2. The unrighteous dead. A few clear passages.

V. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, 462-466. Series of state
ments. I. New Testament teaches an outward, visible return.
2. The time is unrevealed. 3. There are various subordinate
comings. 4. Right attitude one of constant expectancy.
Question: Was Paul mistaken? 5. How the expectation
helped Christians.

VI. THE QUESTION AS TO THE MILLENNIUM, 466-472. Pas
sage in Revelation, 20 : 1-6. Issue between premillennialists
and postmillennialists. Premillennial view in outline. Post-
millennial view in outline. Objections urged by the oppos
ing theorists. Postmillennial objections to the opposing theory.
Premillennial objections to the opposing theory. Conclusion:
five points.

VII. THE RESURRECTION, 472-478. Teaching in the Gospels,
Acts, and Epistles. Two questions : Is New Testament teach
ing simply a doctrine of immortality? Reply. How is the
body raised ? Reply. Summary as to resurrection : six points.

VIII. THE JUDGMENT, 478-483. Topics discussed. I. The
fact. 2. The Judge. 3. The subjects. 4. The purpose. 5. The
necessity. Finality in various ways: (i) For the conscience.
(2) For history. (3) For theism.

IX. THE FINAL STATES, 483-491. Heaven. Outward aspect.
Various teachings. Inward aspect: I. Heaven as relief. 2.
Heaven as reward. 3. Heaven as realization. 4. Heaven
as appreciation. 5. Heaven as endless growth. Hell. Four
statements as to hell: I. Absence of heavenly elements. 2.
Symbolic and figurative teachings of Scripture. 3. There are
degrees in punishment of wicked. 4. Doom of wicked is
endless.

X. THEORIES WHICH DENY ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, 491-503.
Two theories, annihilationism and restorationism. Annihila-

[ xxiii ]

Contents

tionism. Soul not naturally immortal. Several forms of the
theory. Biblical words relied upon. Various passages. Reply,
1-7. Restorationism. Several forms in which it is held,
i, Arguments based on Scripture passages, and replies to
them. General statements in conclusion. 2. Arguments based
on inferences from God and man and the moral kingdom.
Reply. Detailed reply. General considerations, (i)-(3).

f xxiv ]

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

IN ITS DOCTRINAL EXPRESSION

CHAPTER I
RELIGION AND THEOLOGY

I. TWOFOLD AIM

aim of this treatise is twofold: first, to set forth the
contents of the Christian religion; and, secondly, to set
forth the doctrines of the religion which arise out of it
and which are necessary to explain its meaning.

The aim implies a necessary connection between religion and
theology. Theology has often been defined as the science which
treats of God. This definition is based on the derivation of the
word from the Greek words meaning God (Theos) and reason
(logos). But Christian theology is something more than the
science which treats of God. It also includes in its field of in
vestigation man's relations to God. The reason for this wider
definition of Christian theology becomes clear when we con
sider the nature of Christianity. The Christian religion is not
a theory or speculation about God. It is more than deductions
from objective facts concerning his nature and attributes. These
are not altogether excluded from Christian theology, but they
are not its foundations nor the chief elements of its content.
Primarily religion is man's relations to the divine Being. It
involves fellowship and obedience on man's part, and self-revela
tion on God's part. It is a form of experience and of life. It

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

is an order of facts. Theology is the systematic and scientific
explanation of this order of facts. Sometimes the term theology
is used in a narrower sense, meaning the doctrine of God as
distinguished from the doctrine of man, or the doctrine of sin,
or the doctrine of salvation, or other particular doctrines. This,
however, is not in conflict with what has just been said as to the
general use of the word. It has come to mean the whole range
of doctrines regarding God in his relations to man.

This meaning appears in the use of the term in the various
departments of theology. When we speak of the theology of
the Old Testament we mean the systematic exposition of the
truths about God and his revelations to man arising out of the
life and experience of God's people in the Old Testament history.
New Testament theology means the corresponding truths given
in the life and religion of the actors and writers of the New
Testament. The Pauline or Johannine theology means the truths
found in the writings of Paul or John. In general, biblical the
ology is the scientific exposition of the theology of the Bible
unmixed with speculative or other elements drawn from physical
nature or the human reason. But in every instance mentioned,
theology covers all the relations between God and man. It is
not limited to the doctrine of the divine nature or attributes.
Systematic theology is the orderly and harmonious presentation
of the truths of theology with a view to unity and completeness.
Reason may supply certain elements in such presentation which
would be inappropriate in a rigidly biblical method of treatment.
Historical theology traces the stages in the development of
doctrines through the Christian centuries, with a view to show
ing their inner connections from age to age.

Another method of dealing with the doctrines of the Christian
religion is that which gives prominence to Christian experience.
It is the method adopted in this work.

In principle the experiential way of dealing with Christian
doctrine has been employed in every vital and living system
which has been produced since New Testament times. But in
most cases it has been implicit rather than explicit. Christian

[2]

Religion and Theology

experience has been tacitly assumed. It is the principle which
animates all the biblical writers of both the Old and New Testa
ments. It is the source of power in the writings of an Augus
tine, a Clement, a Schleiermacher. All theology must be vitalized
by experience before it can become a real force for the regenera
tion of men.

But when we speak of making experience explicit in expound
ing the doctrines of Christianity, we are by no means adopting
that as the sole criterion of truth. He would be a very unwise
man who should attempt to deduce all Christian doctrine from
his own subjective experience. As we shall soon see, Chris
tianity is a historical religion. Jesus Christ is its sole founder
and supreme authority as the revealer of God. The Scriptures
are our only source of authoritative information about Christ
and his earthly career. These are fundamental to any correct
understanding of our religion.

When, therefore, we speak of making Christian experience
explicit as a principle in theological statement, we are simply
seeking to understand Christianity first of all as a religion. We
certainly cannot know the meaning of the religion until we know
what the religion is. There are ways of handling Christian doc
trine which lead away from the truth. A theologian may adopt
some abstract logical or philosophical principle and construct a
system having but slight connection with the New Testament. To
avoid this error the best recourse is the religion of the New
Testament itself.

It will be noted, then, that the clear recognition in doctrinal
discussion of the experience of Christians does not render the
ology less biblical, or less systematic, or less historical. The
Bible is the greatest of all books of religious experience. The
theology of its great writers is all, in a sense, the expression of
their experience under the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. Paul's
conversion was a formative influence in all his doctrinal teachings.

Again, our treatment is none the less systematic because it is
experiential. We may be more cautious in drawing logical
and philosophic inferences from doctrines revealed and known

[3]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

in experience. But this does not at all hinder a systematic ar
rangement and exposition of doctrine.

So also while the limits of space and method of treatment for
bid any general review of the history of doctrine, the entire treat
ment of theology here represented implies the historical back
ground and the whole course of doctrinal development through
the Christian centuries.

We may now sum up in a general way the factors which
must be taken into account if we are to understand the Christian
religion and the doctrinal teachings which arise out of it.

First of all, we must recognize Jesus Christ as the historical
revelation of God to men. What he is in himself, and what
he means for our faith, are truths which must await development
at a later stage of this book. But Christianity is bound up indis-
solubly with the facts of the historical Jesus.

Secondly, we must assign to their proper place the Scriptures
of the New Testament as the indispensable source of our knowl
edge of the historical Jesus and his work for our salvation.

In the third place, we must recognize the place and work of
the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. He continues the work of
Christ. It is through him that we are led to accept Christ. It
is in and through him that the meaning of the Christian facts is
brought home to us.

Fourthly, we must seek to define and understand the spiritual
experiences of Christians as subject to the operation of God's
Spirit revealing Christ to them. The history of doctrine will aid
in this, but we must make also a direct study of experience itself.

Now it is in the combination and union of all these factors,
and not in any one or two of them taken by themselves, that we
find what we seek when we undertake a systematic study of
the Christian religion and its theology. We may specify some
of the advantages of this method of study in the following
statements :

i. It enables us to avoid a false intellectualism in theology. It
keeps theology properly anchored to facts and their meaning.
It requires little discernment to see that systematic theologies

[4]

Religion and Theology

which are chiefly concerned with the logical or philosophical
relations between truths in a unified order, may easily overlook
vital interests of the spiritual life. The Scriptures rarely present
truth in this way. They never present it apart from the vital
needs of the soul. The sense of proportion in the emphasis upon
truth may be easily lost in our admiration for the harmony and
beauty of a systematic arrangement. A single doctrine or con
ception, such as the sovereignty of God, or election, or human
freedom, may be given a dominating position and all other truths
modified to make them conform. Theological controversy may
lead to one-sided systems. Thus Calvinism and Arminianism
have sometimes taken on extreme forms and have led to un
fortunate results. Other issues, more common in modern times,
produce the same reactions to extreme forms of statement.

Now when the interests of life and experience are made ex
plicit, many errors of this kind are avoided. So also a restraint
is felt thus which prevents too great license in speculative and
metaphysical deductions from biblical truth. We cannot have
theology without metaphysics, but our metaphysics should arise
out of the data supplied by the Scriptures and understood
through our living experience of God in Christ.

2. The method also affords the necessary fact basis for the
scientific presentation of the truths of Christian theology. The
finest thing in the modern scientific spirit is its demand for
facts and its painstaking and conscientious interpretation of
facts. The desire to know reality as it is in itself and not as
we wish it to be, combined with the patient effort to express
exactly its meaning, is of the essence of the scientific spirit. Now
this motive and aim are most welcome to those who would study
the Christian religion and who would express its meaning in
a system of theology.

It is clear, upon reflection, that all the factors named are essen
tial to such a thoroughgoing study of the Christian religion.
If we study the historical Jesus apart from the other factors
mentioned, we never get beyond a problem of history. If we
devote ourselves solely to the study of the Scriptures by means

[5]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the most approved critical and scientific methods, we never
rise above the issues involved in literary and historical criticism,
or at best in questions of exegesis. In neither case do we rise
to the level of religion itself. Again, if we grow weary of
historical and exegetical study and devote ourselves to the work
of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, to the exclusion of the other
factors, we do indeed come to the study of religion. But under
these conditions it is not and cannot be the Christian religion
in its fulness and power. We cannot dispense with Christ, and
we are indissolubly bound to the Scriptures in any attempt to
understand that religious experience we call Christian.

Two fundamental questions arise at the outset in any adequate
study of the Christian religion. One relates to Jesus Christ.
Who is Jesus, and what is he to men? The other relates to
our experience of God's redeeming power in the soul. What is
the relation of Jesus Christ to that experience? Those questions
inevitably lead back to the question of the New Testament, the
historical source o-f our information about Christ. They also
lead back to the work of God's Spirit in our hearts. Hence we
conclude that all four of the factors named are essential to a
scientific study of the Christian religion.

In the light of these statements we see how defective are some
efforts which are called scientific, to express the meaning of Chris
tianity. Numerous attempts have been made to set forth " the
essence of Christianity." It is not our purpose here to dwell
upon these at length. But usually they are efforts to extract
from the Gospel records some small remainder of what is held
to be the religion of the New Testament by Christians generally,
and cast away the other elements as worthless. Of course it is
always open to any one to raise the question whether the original
gospel has been perverted. But too often efforts of this kind
fail to take account of all the elements in the problem. Chris
tianity cannot be reduced to a simple problem of historical
criticism. The facts involved have a much wider range. Again,
Christianity cannot be construed under the guidance of some
previously formed world-view or philosophy of the universe. We

[6]

Religion and Theology

must begin with the facts in their totality and reckon with them.
This is simply another way of saying that we must adopt the
scientific method of dealing with the question.

3. Again, the method gives the best apologetic foundation for
a system of theology. The term apologetics is perhaps not the
most appropriate one for designating the scientific defense of the
Christian religion against attack. But it has come into general
use for this purpose and is well enough understood. Apologetics
is, of course, a distinct department of theology, and calls for
discussion of some problems which cannot be treated in sys
tematic theology. And yet the latter requires a sound apologetic
foundation in order to maintain itself among other sciences.
The method adopted in this work affords the strongest apologetic
foundation for theology because it emphasizes the facts of history
and of experience. A comparison with some of the older apolo
getic defenses will show this. We name a few of these:

(1) The proof of God's existence from the phenomena of
the universe has long been a favorite method. It possesses, no
doubt, elements of great strength. But along with these there
are elements of weakness. Logical deduction from physical
phenomena lends itself to many theories of the universe. Each
of them claims to be most in accord with the facts. There results
always an unstable equilibrium of theories. None of them satis
fies fully. Immanuel Kant held that we cannot know what is
behind phenomena. We can only know reality in its manifesta
tions. And so long as we are limited to deductive reasoning
from data objective to the mind itself there is much truth in
his view. That which arises is a high degree of probability
rather than knowledge in the strict sense, when we reason
deductively to prove God's existence. But for the Christian who
recognizes the reality and meaning of his experience of God in
Christ a new kind of knowledge of God arises. The " proofs "
are transferred from the world without to the world within.
Thus direct knowledge of God arises.

(2) Again, the proof of Christianity from miracles has always
been questioned by many of the devotees of physical science.

[7]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Christians have rightly replied that the objections were not well
founded. But here again the proof resides in the realm of a
remote history. Debate continues indefinitely because preference
or preconception determines the view adopted. It is most prob
able that Christians themselves are not convinced entirely by
the logical demonstration based on the reliability of the New
Testament witnesses. Unconsciously they have been influenced
by their own experience of a supernatural power working in
them and redeeming them. It is easy to believe the New Testa
ment miracles if the same power is known as a personal and
vital experience. If then we make clear and explicit what that
experience is, and combine it with the witness of the well-sup
ported historical records, we have a much more powerful argu
ment from miracles.

(3) The deity of Christ has been employed as a means of
establishing the truth of Christianity. A powerful argument is
constructed from the witness of Jesus to himself, from the im
pression Ke made on others, from his resurrection, from his place
and power in Christian history, and in other ways. But when
to these considerations we add the facts as to Christ's redeeming
power in men, we have greatly increased the strength of the
appeal to his divinity.

The above will suffice to show the nature of the apologetic
foundation which is laid for theology when the redemptive ex
perience of God in Christ is made explicit and clear as an essen
tial factor in the interpretation of Christianity. This does not
by any means imply that we are henceforth done with history
or logical proofs, or any of the ordinary processes by which
the mind works out its conclusions. It only implies that from
the center of a well-founded history, as interpreted in the light of
a divinely inwrought experience, we may properly estimate the
value of all the proofs. The Christian religion as a power in the
soul, redeeming and transforming it, is its own best evidence.

4. The method adopted has a further advantage in that it
enables us to show the reality, the autonomy, and freedom of
the Christian religion. These are great demands which the

[8]

Religion and Theology

modern world makes upon religion. A scientific age has given
rise to a passionate demand for the real in the study of all
subjects. Make-believes and shams of all kinds are subject
to the most rigid scrutiny and criticism. Nothing can long
remain secure which cannot endure the fierce heat and light o£
ruthless investigation. The religion of Christ welcomes this.
It is the glory of Christ that he made the spiritual universe
real to men. He brought God home to their souls. Those who
know God in Christ find in him the supreme reality.

The religion of Christ is autonomous. This means that it has
its resources in itself. The Christian has the guidance of God's
Spirit when in humility he seeks it. He acquires a relation to
and knowledge of the Bible which is for him most convincing
and conclusive. He has the witness in himself. His faith per
forms for him a service, secures for him a power, brings to him
a blessedness and a peace which he finds in no other way. The
conflict between flesh and spirit, between the visible and invisible,
between the temporal and eternal order, is reconciled and over
come in Christ. He does not value other forms of human activity
less than he did before, but rather more. But he sees that religion
is the supreme value of life, the supreme function of the soul.
In it all else, art, science, education, philosophy, are transformed
into new forms of development and of ministry. But he also
sees that they all find their completion and fulfilment in religion
itself.

The religion of Christ is free. It is not subject to the rule of
any form of human culture alien to itself. It is in conflict with
no legitimate activity of man. Each great department of life
has its special method, its great underlying principle. Physical
science works with the principle of causality. Philosophy em
ploys that of rationality. Religion deals with personality. God
and man in relations of mutual love and service are the great
realities with which it deals. There is no conflict between any
of these, as we shall see. It arises only when one of these
spheres undertakes to rule the other.

As autonomous and free, and as dealing with the greatest of

[9]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

all realities, the Christian religion in every age of the world comes
to redeem men. They accept it under the conditions of their
own age, confronted by their own difficulties and problems.
Hence arises the need for restating its doctrines in terms of the
living experience of each generation. Human creeds are valuable
as such expressions. But they do not serve all the ends of doc
trine. We must ever return to the Scriptures for new inspira
tion. We must ever ask anew the questions as to Christ and
his relations to the needs of each generation. He does not change.
His religion is the same in all ages. But our difficulties and
problems are shaped anew by the forms of life which ever change
about us. Hence we must revitalize our faith by deepening
our communion with God and witnessing to his power in us.

5. The experiential method of dealing with Christian truth
helps in defining the nature of the authority of the Bible. The
Bible, against tradition and against the authority of the papal
system, was one of the watchwords of the Reformation. Protes
tantism has from the beginning made the Bible the authoritative
source of the knowledge of the gospel of Christ. Opponents
have urged objections to the biblical authority on various grounds.
It has been objected that the Bible is not infallible and hence
cannot be an authority. The existence of textual errors, scientific,
or historical deviations from exact truth, discrepancies of various
kinds, proves that the Bible cannot be accepted as an infallible
guide in religion, so it was argued. Christian apologists used to
expend great energy and pains in answering all of these charges.
Finally they came to see that the objector demanded more than
faith required. We are not bound to prove in a way which com
pels assent that the Bible is the supreme authority for Christian
faith. Such proof would not produce faith at all. It could
only produce intellectual assent. The Christian's acceptance of
the Bible arises in another way. It comes to him in " demon
stration of the Spirit and of power." It is the life in him which
answers to the life the Scriptures reveal which convinces him.
So that the Bible is not for him an authority on all subjects, but
in religion it is final and authoritative. At this stage the objector

[10]

Religion and Theology

took a further step and urged that no authority which is external
to the soul can be accepted. Truth must be assimilated and
understood, not imposed by authority of any kind, whether pope
or church or Bible. The Christian then framed his reply on
the basis of his own inner experience. He urged that the very
essence of the redemption he knows in Christ is inwardly as
similated truth and actual knowledge of the great spiritual real
ities. He proceeded to define and expound the truth thus in
wardly known and assimilated. But then the objector gave the
argument another turn entirely. He charged that the alleged
knowledge of the Christian was merely inward and subjective.
It was lacking in objective reality, and hence was unreliable.
Of course these objections contradict each other. We shall see
them recurring in other connections in the following pages.

Now the Christian rises above and overcomes both forms of
the objection by insisting that it is in the union and combination
of the objective source and the subjective experience that cer
tainty and assurance are. found. He is no less interested in
objective reality than his opponent. He is no less interested
in inward assimilation of truth. But he finds both in the religion
of Christ. He finds Jesus Christ to be for him the supreme
revelation of God's redeeming grace. He finds the Scriptures
the authoritative source of his knowledge of that revelation.
And then he finds in his own soul that working of God's grace
which enables him to know Christ and to understand the Scrip
tures. Thus the objective and subjective elements find a unity
and harmony which is entirely satisfying.

Now if the opposite method is pursued and either the Bible
or experience is taken alone, no such finality is .possible. If
the Bible is considered in an intellectual way merely, apart from
the experience of God's redeeming grace in Christ, then again
we have a recurrence of the old debate on grounds of history
and criticism. Theories are then framed according to mental
prepossessions, and unity of view is impossible. Again, if ex
perience is taken apart from the history, the old charge of sub
jectivism at once recurs. Hence for the Christian there is no

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

finally convincing and satisfying view except in the combination
of the two elements. For the opponent of the Christian view
this also makes the strongest appeal. There is an inward reality
which corresponds to objective facts of history. God's approach
to man in and through Christ finds its reaction in man's response.
Faith completes the union, and the life of God flows into the
life of man and transforms it.

II. MODERN WAYS OF REGARDING RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

In order to prepare the way for our treatment of the Christian
religion and its theology, we consider some of the modern ways
of dealing with the facts of religion and especially those of the
Christian religion.

i. We consider first the view of Comte and the position of
the Positive Philosophy. Comte held that religion is a form of
superstition. Man is impressed by the powers and mysteries of
nature. On account of his ignorance of natural laws he imagines
a God or gods to account for them. This is the period of the
childhood of the race. But gradually the reason works over
the problems of existence. Metaphysical theories for explaining
the universe arise, and man imagines he has found truth. But
these metaphysical speculations are nothing more than the return
of the old gods which were previously believed in. They are
the shadows of the gods which are cast as the gods pass away.
Finally men learn the truth. There are no gods. Metaphysics
is an illusion. No truth comes through speculation. The only
truth is that which arises out of the facts of matter, force, and
motion. The most advanced races will therefore drop both
religion and metaphysics out of consideration and devote them
selves to the study of physical science. Of course under this
view all forms of religious experience are regarded as purely
emotional and subjective. There is no valid objective ground
for them which can be found.

There is no need to reply to this theory at length here. All
that follows in this volume is the Christian reply. But briefly

[12]

Religion and Theology

the following may be said. The view does not explain religion ;
it merely explains it away. Religion is a universal fact. It
calls for careful consideration which the theory does not give.
The view is contrary to the nature of man as a spiritual being.
Physical facts and laws do not satisfy the soul. Man craves
the infinite. The craving is a part of his spiritual constitution.
The theory ignores also the nature of personality and its sig
nificance. Man is himself as real as nature. What does per
sonality mean in the interpretation of the universe ? Comte gives
no adequate reply. The view ignores history and experience.
Men do not and cannot dispense with religion. The theory thus
ignores half the facts known to us in the interest of the other
half. It builds a philosophy on one aspect of being, the physical.
It is abstract and unsatisfying in the highest degree.

2. Another view closely related to the above regards religion
as a useful device or function which men have adopted to aid
them in their struggle for existence. Religious psychology shows
how fundamental faith in some form is for men generally. It
is useful. They invent a God or gods to answer their needs.
There is real value in religion. It makes men strong to endure
and to struggle for victory. But the gods they believe in have no
objective reality. Religion then is simply a " value " which men
" conserve." But the time may come when these values will give
place to higher values. Reason will take the place of faith.
The religious value will thus be gathered up in a rational value.
Thus religion will pass because men can do without it.

It will be seen that this view is just a slightly improved form
of the view of Comte. All the objections to the latter hold
against it. It is false in its estimate of man, of religion, and
of the facts of history and experience. It attempts to show that
the only valid satisfactions of the soul are those of the pure
reason. Psychology shows clearly that man is a being with other
needs and satisfactions. There is no such thing as pure reason,
or reason apart from feeling and will and conscience. Man's
nature has more than one dimension. God has set eternity in the
heart. We are restless till we rest in God.

[13]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

3. A third view is that of Mysticism. There is a real object
for the soul in its outreaching for the infinite. We come in
contact with it in our religious yearnings and strivings. But
this is all we can say about it beyond the fact that the feelings
are stirred by our contact with it. We cannot say it is a personal
being. Personality implies limitation, it is urged. Thought
cannot frame a definition of God because the infinite One rises
above thought. It is enough if we can find it and rest in it.

Some adopt this view to avoid a clash with science or other
forms of human thought. By avoiding assertions it avoids con
troversy. Others adopt it because for them religion is exclusively
a matter of feeling. Thought does not enter into it. The view
has had advocates throughout history. But it cannot answer all
the ends of religion. It severs religion from ethics and the
practical life of man because it gives no definite view of God and
his requirements. It tends to inaction because it finds no purpose
or plan of God to be carried out by men. The vagueness and
indefiniteness of its conception of God impresses upon it a pan
theistic stamp. It cannot avoid the evils of pantheism. In the
end all pantheistic systems cancel the significance of ethics, of
truth, of personality, of immortality, and of the eternal king
dom of God. Mysticism in this form cannot escape those evils.
Mysticism in the sense of communion with the infinite is an
essential element in Christian experience. But Christianity asserts
at many points where mysticism denies.

4. A fourth view estimates the forms of Christian experience
as judgments of value. It is based on a theory of knowledge
which denies that we can know things in themselves. We know
phenomena. We do not know what is behind phenomena. We
know Christ in salvation. He has for us the value of God.
But we do not know what he is in his essential nature. So also
other forms of religious experience are estimates or judgments
of value regarding God and the spiritual universe. The view
asserts that we do not need to know things save as they relate
to us. Their worth to us is the only interest we have in them.

The view is valuable in its emphasis upon experience. In

[14]

Religion and Theology

religion it is our personal interest and our personal relation to
God which give vitality and power. Religion is not a speculation
or theory about God. It is the experience of God. It is God
known to us through communion and fellowship. Ritschl, who
developed the idea of the value- judgment in religion, helped
to emphasize the need of reality and power in the Christian life.
But he went too far in his denials.

Here again the denials were intended as a means of avoiding
conflict with physical science. It was an effort to escape from
the old controversies about the person of Christ, the personality
of God and related subjects. But the effort did not succeed.
The old issue returned. The human mind will not rest content
in negations about ultimate realities. The view failed to do
justice to the Christian conception of revelation. It did not
recognize the divine side of the religious relationship in a de
gree which Christianity requires. In religion God speaks as
well as man. Jesus Christ is God's revelation to us in word
and in deed. What Christ works in us is the best evidence of
what he is in himself.

5. A watchword which has become common in modern times
is based on the underestimate of doctrinal teaching and insists
upon " religion without theology." " Give us the facts," it in
sists, " never mind about theories." As we may have flowers
without botanies, so we may have religion without theology.
And so with some there is an effort to avoid theological state
ments except in the smallest possible degree. Sometimes this is
a protest against a mere barren orthodoxy of belief and against
the passion for fruitless theological controversy. As such it is
sometimes justified. But it often arises from the motive we have
mentioned, the desire to avoid conflict with other forms of
thought.

Now there are a number of strong reasons why it is impos
sible to dispense with theology and at the same time keep our
religion. It is not denied that in the earliest stages of religious
experience there may be little reflection upon it and a bare
minimum of doctrinal belief. Some Christians seem never to

[15]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

advance beyond the childhood of faith in their reflective thought
about religion. But for all advanced Christian experience there
must be doctrinal beliefs to express its meaning. The necessity
for theology arises from the following considerations:

(1) First, theology is necessary as a means of expressing the
meaning of religion because of the nature of man. If man were
feeling alone, we might dispense with doctrinal teaching. But
our nature includes reason as well as feeling. It is impossible
to draw a sharp line between the emotional, or moral, or volitional
part of our nature on the one side, and our reason on the other.
We are constituted with a knowing capacity, and it must be
satisfied along with the other elements.

(2) The nature of all human experience shows the same truth.
It is only by an abstract process of thought that we can sepa
rate the " fact " of religion from the " theory." The word
" theory " is simply another word for " meaning." The so-called
theory of religion is simply its meaning. And for an intelligent,
thoughtful being, nothing can become a fact for the conscious
ness apart from some meaning connected with the fact. It is
not a fact for consciousness except as a greater or less degree of
meaning attends it. In a state of infancy or unconsciousness,
facts may exist which have no meaning for us. But the further
we are removed from these two states, the greater the necessity
for meaning in all the facts of our conscious lives. Religion
especially, which goes deepest into our consciousness, awakens a
craving for the meaning. The doctrines of theology are the
answer to that craving.

(3) Theology is necessary, therefore, if we would define our
religion. We are not obliged to exhaust the meaning of religion
in our definitions of it. The objects and experiences involved are
beyond our capacity for knowing in some of their aspects. But
we may apprehend what we cannot comprehend. We may know
in part if we may not know altogether.

(4) Theology is necessary in order to defend religion against
attack. The Christian may decide that he will abandon thought
about religion. He will simply enjoy it. But very soon the

[16]

Religion and Theology

antichristian thinker advances a theory of the world which would
completely set aside the Christian religion. This has been true
throughout history. The effort to ignore the meaning of re
ligion expressed in the form of doctrine is always rudely dis
turbed by some new assault upon the faith. At once the necessity
arises for clear doctrinal statements to meet objections. We must
define religion in order to defend it.

(5) Again, theology is necessary to religion in order to propa
gate it. Christianity is a missionary religion. It is aggressive
and conquering in motive and aim. But no possible success can
attend the propagation of a Christianity without doctrine. Ex
perience breeds truth. Then truth is employed to produce ex
perience. Experience then imparts a new appreciation of truth.
But always if we would successfully propagate the Christian
religion, we must have a Christian theology.

6. Again, the study of religion and theology is sometimes
merged in the study of their history. Historical theology is held
up by way of contrast with systematic or dogmatic theology.
The history of religion and the history of doctrine are sufficient
for our needs, it is held.

In regard to this method and point of view we may admit
at once the very great value of the historical study of any great
subject. The tendency to go back to beginnings and discover
origins and causes is a very valuable one. To trace the varia
tions and reactions of any movement through history is necessary
to a comprehensive understanding. So long, therefore, as the
historical study of theology is valued for its true worth, it is to
be strongly commended. Such study, however, becomes a serious
error when it is made a substitute for something else having a
different motive and end. The objective and detached study of
the history of religion or the history of theology is valuable from
the point of view of critical research. The scholar and inves
tigator who is this and nothing more finds it a field of fascinat
ing interest. But if the scholar and investigator is also a Chris
tian man, with a profound interest in religion and its spread over
the earth, the historical study of theology is invariably qualified

[17]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

by a new motive and interest. For him scientific research is a
means to a higher end. He wishes to discover the truth con
tained in the history that it may be employed as a means of
advancing the kingdom of God. Otherwise the study of his
tory is like watching the changing combinations of color in a
kaleidoscope, or the variations in the appearance of an evening
cloud. For the earnest Christian man, and especially for the
preacher of the gospel, the merely objective study of theology
as a historical movement apart from the deeper interest in truth
itself, may become a hindrance rather than a help to efficiency. It
is a fundamental fact of psychology made clear by all Christian
history, that efficiency in propagating Christianity is based on
intense conviction of the truths it contains. The preacher and
teacher of the gospel cannot remain neutral to its content of
truth and at the same time retain power in his efforts to lead
others to accept it. This does not mean willingness to believe
what is false. He passionately desires truth because of its
supreme value for man's religious life.

III. CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE AND REVELATION

We have already observed, and there will be frequent occasion
to recur to the fact in the pages which follow, that the Christian
religion has to do with two great groups of facts: the facts of
experience and the facts of the historical revelation of God
through Christ. The place of the Scriptures we consider at a
later stage of the discussion. Here it is important to consider
the general relations between these two groups of facts. What
do we mean by Christian experience? The answer to this ques
tion will lead to the idea of the Christian revelation. The two
are closely related. Neither can be fully understood apart from
the other.

By the Christian experience we mean the totality of the ex
perience which becomes ours through our fellowship with God
in Christ. Reference is not made simply to conversion, much
less to any particular type of conversion. The Christian experi-

[18]

Religion and Theology

ence, of course, includes its beginning. But it also includes all
that follows. Regeneration and its results are all included.
Christian experience includes also all that properly belongs to
the experience in the community of Christians. It includes the
life of all Christians, of the past as well as of the present. It is
not the experience of any individual alone, or any particular type.
It does include certain essential elements of experience, but these
appear in endless variations among Christian men. Again, the
Christian experience bears a definite relation to events outside the
Christian's personal spiritual life. It is definitely related, in other
words, to the providence of God. It is an experience which can
grasp intelligently its place and meaning in a life lived under
conditions of time and space and in human society. Finally, it
is an experience which is capable of being defined in relation to
all other forms of human experience and of human culture.
While the experience of redemption through Jesus Christ is
unique and exceptional among the earthly experiences of men,
it is not unrelated to the others. Indeed, it is in part because
it can be so clearly defined in relation to the natural life of man
and to his various ideals and struggles, that for the Christian it
brings such assurance and power. In its relations to science, to
art, to ethics, to philosophy, and to the whole range of human
interests and pursuits, the Christian experience is capable of
clear and convincing exposition. It is the unifying bond of all
human experience. All things become new under the light which
shines from the heart of the Christian experience itself. All
this will appear in various ways in the pages which follow.

Here once more we meet the ever-recurring objection that the
experience of the Christian is subjective, the imaginings of his
own heart rather than a great reality. The objection assumes
that a subjective experience cannot be true; that God cannot
make himself known to the Christian. No such assumption
is justifiable. It is a question of fact, not of unfounded assump
tion. And as we have previously stated, the question of fact
is not merely a question of our subjective experience. It is
also a question of the historic revelation of God in Christ.

[19]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Theology has often considered the question of the " ante
cedent probability " of a revelation to mankind. Various argu
ments were advanced to establish such a probability. But the
question and answer gain in clearness if it is asked whether
religion is ever to be completed, or is to remain always a one
sided affair. Religion is communion between God and man.
It is a reciprocal relationship. Does God ever speak? Is he
forever dumb ? Is religion merely a soliloquy on man's part?

Now the Christian revelation is God's answer to these ques
tions. He has spoken to men in his Son. He is still speaking
to them. There are three phases of that revelation which we
must recognize if it is to become effective for our salvation.
These will all receive more extended treatment subsequently.
But meantime they need to be presented in outline.

1. The historic revelation in Jesus Christ. In that revela
tion we have the great central fact of the Christian religion out
side of our consciousness entirely. He came to earth committed
to a definite vocation. His consciousness clearly reflected the
sense of divine approval at every stage of his ministry. He
announced to men that he came to reveal God and to lead sinful
men to God. He died and rose again. His death was an atone
ment for human sin. The gift of the Holy Spirit was his means
for continuing his redemptive activity.

2. The result of the inworking of Christ in human souls was
deliverance from sin and guilt and moral and spiritual trans
formation. 'A new movement in human history came as a result
of his inworking spiritually in the hearts of men.

3. There were definite spiritual conditions to which men were
required to conform in order to know the divine redeeming grace
and power. Repentance and faith sum up the spiritual attitude
involved. Thus the revelation of God in Christ possesses all the
elements which are required to establish its truth. It is known
as objective fact. It is then known in its results in subjective ex
perience. It is known in the latter sense through clearly defined
and well-understood spiritual conditions. These conditions are
definitely related to objective facts. It is protected against

[20]

Religion and Theology

mere subjectivism by its objective ground in history. It is
protected against the uncertainties of merely critical and literary
processes by its results in our own experience. Professor Haer-
ing sums up the work of Jesus in the following language : 1 " Jesus
is the personal self -revelation of God ... of the God who in
his kingdom unites sinners with himself and with each other in
the eternal fellowship of his love, judging sin, pardoning guilt,
renewing the will, vanquishing death. Jesus is the personal self-
revelation of this God, since he evokes such trust as the actively
real presence of the invisible God in the actual world, in which
there is otherwise no real assured confidence in this God. He
is the ground of faith, i. e., of trust. This is the truth to which
the faith of the New Testament testifies in the most varied
forms. What is most important, it records the impression which
Jesus himself produced, and which he always contrives to pro
duce, as the ages pass."

The point which calls for emphasis here is that the basis
on which the Christian doctrine of revelation rests is a basis
of fact in all its aspects. History and experience combine to
establish it upon irrefutable grounds. It is not necessary at
this stage to consider the various means adopted to set aside
this revelation and its fundamental significance for men. Broadly
speaking, all these efforts have resorted to untenable methods
of dealing with the question. So long as strictly critical and
strictly scientific principles are allowed to control, the outcome
is as we have indicated. It is only when a priori presuppositions
or illegitimate assumptions are adopted that it is possible to
arrive at any other result. It may be urged, for example, that
all the elements of the Gospel records, except those which leave
a simply human Jesus, are to be rejected. But this cannot be
done on critical grounds. For criticism warrants no such con
clusion. Or it may be urged that the early disciples were in
fluenced by the ethnic religions about them to introduce many
false elements into the Gospels. But this, as a mere supposi
tion, does not convince. And labored efforts to connect the New

1 T. Haering, " The Christian Faith," Vol. I, pp. 208, 209.

[ail

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Testament with such influences have failed up to the present.
Or again, objectors may insist upon the " Christ principle " as
distinguished from Jesus the personal revelation of the eternal
God. But this also is the result of a purely arbitrary handling
of the Gospel material, based on a particular type of philosophic
opinion. Once more in the interest of a general theory of evo
lutionism as the key to the meaning of the world, it may be
insisted that no individual man can ever possess absolute and
final significance for the human race. But here again it is a
philosophic presupposition which yields the conclusion, not regard
for the facts themselves. In a word, every other view except
that which recognizes in Jesus God's revelation to men for their
salvation, leaves out some part of the facts. They omit essen
tial elements of the history, such as Christ's own claims, or the
effects he produced upon his disciples, or the work he has wrought
in and through men in the past and present. Philosophical specu
lation may set aside Christ, but science and criticism fail to do so.

IV. THE NEED FOR A PERSONAL SELF-REVELATION OF GOD

We have then, in the Christian religion, a self -revelation of
God in the domain of human history. Along with this the revela
tion is made real and vital for men in the realm of personal ex
perience. If now we ask the question, why the self-revelation of
God took this form, and keep in mind the needs and require
ments of religion itself, a satisfactory answer is not far to seek.

i. In the first place, a human personality is the only adequate
medium for the self-revelation of a personal God. Only person
ality can fully reveal and express the meaning of personality.
Of course there are many intimations and suggestions of per
sonality to be found in the physical universe. But those are not
sufficient in themselves to express all the wealth of meaning in the
nature of the infinite personal God. The moral qualities of God
especially call for a personal, moral life in order that they may
be clearly and fully expressed. The lower stages of nature, as
we shall afterward show, give rise to the expectation of a personal

[22]

Religion and Theology

being as the crown of nature. And if God is to make himself
fully known to men who, in the exercise of their freedom, came
under the dominion of sin, it is most natural to expect that he
would disclose himself to such personal beings in the form of
a personal life.

2. Again, the personal and historical revelation of God was
necessary to complete and establish firmly the inward revela
tion through his Spirit. In other words, it was necessary to save
religion from the uncertainties and perils of subjectivism. So
long as religion was without an objective ground, it was always
exposed to the danger that it would fail to attain the stability
and definiteness required by the religious life itself. Man must
really know God if the idea and power of God are to bear their
highest moral fruits in human life.

3. A third reason for such a self-revelation of God is that
the deed of love and of righteousness is a far more powerful
revelation of these qualities in God than the simple declaration
of them could ever be. The Scriptures declare that God is love.
They show also that he is righteousness. It is clear, therefore,
that if God is such a being in his essential nature, a mere declara
tion of the fact would not constitute a real demonstration of
it. To become love and righteousness in action would be the
only adequate revelation of the fact of love and righteousness in
God's essential nature. The incarnation and atonement of God in
Christ thus become the only adequate means for a self-disclosure
on his part which would do justice to the claim.

4. In the fourth place, such a revelation was required in order
to the production of the necessary results in the moral and
spiritual nature of man. This point becomes clear when we con
sider the insufficiency of any other form of revelation for the
end in view. Miracles and outward wonders alone would not
meet the need. They were employed for a time in order to
awaken in men a sense of God's presence. But they were always
employed for moral and personal ends. In themselves, however,
they were never an adequate means of creating in men the full
religious response to God. A man might indeed be convinced of

[23]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

God's presence and activity in an intellectual way by wonders and
signs, and remain untouched in the depths of his moral nature.
But this is not the chief end of the gospel. That end is not
understood until we perceive that in his self-revelation in Christ
God's intention was to produce the " response of moral qualities
in man to moral qualities in God." His end was to produce sons
of God worthy in all respects of their Father in heaven. To
accomplish this he gave his own Son, who revealed the inner
nature of God as righteous love and became the medium through
whom the power of God could reach personal beings and repro
duce the same qualities in them. Thus the idea and the ideal
of religion was fulfilled; God spoke to man, and man spoke to
God; the divine love awakened human love. For the first time
man understood clearly and fully the moral nature of God.

V. THEOLOGY AND TRUTH

Another matter which needs consideration in this introductory
chapter is the relation of theology to truth. In presenting a con
nected system of theological doctrines, as we have seen, the aim
is to set forth the meaning of religion. Christian theology is
simply the interpretation of the Christian religion. But in this
pursuit are we dealing with truth? Is theology in any proper
sense a science? Enough has been said on the preceding pages
to indicate very clearly the direction our answer will take. We
declare without hesitation that in the Christian religion and in
the theology which expresses its meaning, we are dealing with
a form of real knowledge. In another connection we shall give
a definition of knowledge and develop the contents of knowledge
in Christian experience. Here it is sufficient to indicate in general
terms the reasons for holding that Christian theology is a form of
knowledge.

i. The Scriptures, with great uniformity, represent religion
as a form of real knowledge. Jesus declared that " this is life
eternal, that they should know thee, the only true God, and him
whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ" (John 17 : 3). In

[24]

Religion and Theology

fact, it is a fundamental teaching in all the Gospels and Epistles
that in the experience men have of the grace of God in Christ,
there is real knowledge and real truth. This will appear in many
ways as we proceed.

2. Again, in Christian experience, we are dealing with the
greatest of all realities, the spiritual universe, even with God
himself. Religion is not an idea simply. It is not a philosophy
primarily. It is a living experience of a very definite kind. In
this respect it is like every other sphere of experience. It can
be reduced to intelligible and systematic expression for the intel
lect. Hence it is properly a field in which a scientific expression
of meaning is possible.

3. As a science, theology is closely related to many other fields
of scientific research. All the social sciences differ from exact
science in certain respects; but they are none the less sciences
on that account. In them we do not find truth which can be set
forth in the same exact formuke as with those which are found
in the realm of physical research. But this is due not to the
absence of reality and of truth about it. It is due rather to the
nature of the reality with which we deal. Truth in religion
owes its scientific character not to its mathematical quality, but
to its use as a means of systematically expressing the meaning
of the uniformities which prevail in the religious realm.

4. The denial that truth and knowledge are found in religion
is based upon a narrow and untenable conception of knowledge.
Physical science has tended to narrow the idea of truth to proposi
tions which can be proved in exact mathematical terms. But this
narrowing of the conception is due to a confusion of truth itself
with a particular form for expressing it. There are many ways
of expressing the meaning of reality. The claim to truth cannot
be based upon any one way to the exclusion of others. The test
of the claim to truth is the test as to the reality with which it
deals, at least this is the primary and fundamental test. Spiritual
realities will not yield the same formulae for expressing their
meaning as those found in the sphere of physics. But they are
none the less real and may find interpretation in terms of truth.

[25]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

5. The truth of the Christian religion takes the form which
religion requires, and makes the broadest and strongest appeal to
our love of truth. As to the form, religion does not need nor
require mathematical demonstration. Such demonstration does
not and cannot produce faith. It cannot serve as a test for the
reality of the contents of faith. Indeed, if it were substituted
for faith, it would destroy its chief element of value. It follows,
therefore, that such demonstration cannot destroy faith.

The kind of truth which is required by and found in the
life of the religious man, is that which defines the relations of
free moral beings to God and to each other. The relations of
persons, not of physical forces, are in question. Not physical but
free causation is in action in this sphere. The truths which ex
press the relations of God to man are as comprehensive as life
itself. Growth, development, progressive attainment of the moral
and spiritual ideal, are the conditions which determine the forms
of statement for the truths of religion.

Again, the appeal of the truths of religion is of the strongest
kind. It is an intellectual appeal in the narrower sense of the
word. The reason is satisfied because the truths of the Christian
religion may be presented in a coherent system which has unity
and self -consistency. The moral nature is satisfied because the
result is the triumph of the moral nature over sin and self and
the world. All the higher personal life is satisfied because in
the Christian experience human personality comes to its own.
Self-realization, a consciousness of having found the meaning
of life and destiny, is bound up in the Christian experience.
In all these and other ways truth comes home to the nature of
man in Christian experience.

VI. CONCLUDING TOPICS OF PRELIMINARY SURVEY

We have been giving a preliminary survey and discussion of
certain fundamental principles which will reappear from time to
time in the pages which follow. They will be treated in the
connections which arise in the course of the systematic develop-

Religion and Theology

ment of the truths of the Christian religion. There are several
other topics which call for brief consideration before we close
our preliminary survey. They are as follows: The Sources of
Christian Theology; the Material and Formal Principles of The
ology ; the Order and Arrangement of Doctrines ; and the Quali
fications for the Study of Theology.

i. First, as to the sources of theology, our statement has been
anticipated in our previous exposition. The source of Christian
theology is the Christian religion. By the Christian religion we
mean all the factors which enter into that religion, historical,
literary, and spiritual. Fundamentally and most important of
all, Jesus Christ, his life and teaching and atoning death and
resurrection, is the source of the Christian religion. The Holy
Spirit as the gift of Christ to men, the leader and guide in the
inspired record of Christ's life and work, the ever-present guide
to Christians in all ages, is necessary to us if we are to under
stand Christ and his religion. The Scriptures of the Old and of
the New Testament are indispensable to Christian theology be
cause they are a product, and at the same time a source of the
Christian religion. Through them alone do we understand the
great causes which operated to produce the Christian religion
and make it a power on earth. Our own experience of the re
deeming grace of God in Christ is necessary to a full understand
ing of Christian theology. Apart from that religious experience,
theology is an intellectual movement, but lacks the vital elements
required by the very nature of the Christian religion. Experi
ence would ever go astray without the ever-present corrective in
fluence of the Scriptures, and the authority of the Scriptures
would never become for us a vital and transforming reality apart
from the working of God's redeeming grace in us.

The above are the primary sources of the knowledge of the
Christian religion which is expressed in Christian theology. The
ology does not reject such truth as comes through nature,
through history and psychology, or from any other source. But
it plants itself firmly on the Christian facts and develops its doc
trinal views in the first instance from these facts.

[27]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

2. The meaning of theology has often been expressed in terms
of its material and its formal principles. By material principle is
meant its vital and essential content; by formal principle is
meant the form or medium through which the meaning is appre
hended. We may say then that as here presented, the material
principle of theology is man's fellowship with God as mediated
through Jesus Christ. The formal principle is the Scriptures
spiritually interpreted. Other ways of expressing these principles
have been adopted. Justification by faith was regarded as the
material principle of the Reformation. This of course touches
the heart of the spiritual life and the essential content of Chris
tianity. But as a statement of its inward meaning it is not dis
tinctive enough. It is an Old Testament principle gathered up
into the New Testament religion. But it does not specifically
recognize Jesus Christ as the chief agent in the New Testament
revelation. Christ's personal relations to our faith is a neces
sary element in any statement designed to express the central
meaning of the gospel. The same objection holds to the kingdom
of God as a means of expressing that central meaning. It lacks
the specific reference to Jesus Christ. But when we speak of
fellowship with God as mediated through Christ, we express the
vital truth contained in both the other statements. Justification
by faith is a justification conditioned on faith in him. The king
dom of God is a kingdom in which he is King. Fellowship with
God as mediated through Jesus Christ is a phrase comprehensive
enough to cover all the essential elements. It implies justification
by faith. It implies and necessitates the reign of God in his
eternal kingdom. It carries the thought of a progressive moral
attainment, in which the Christian character is gradually trans
formed into the image of Christ. It involves the social aspects
of the gospel according to which the relations of Christians to
each other are determined by the common fellowship they have
with Christ.

The formal principle of Christian theology is the Scriptures
spiritually interpreted. This has particular reference to the
New Testament. But the Old Testament is not excluded. It is

[28]

Religion and Theology

the preliminary revelation. The expression " spiritually inter
preted " is employed to distinguish the method of a living the
ology from that of a merely critical or exegetical study of the
Scriptures. If theology in the correct use of the term is an in
terpretation of the divine life in the soul, we are bound to express
the relations between the life and the theology in defining the
method of arriving at the truth. The pipe which conveys the
water from the reservoir cannot be understood unless we keep
in mind its relation to the water which it conveys. Biblical study
and interpretation have often been a mere empty pipe with no
relation to the true uses in the life of the soul.

3. Our next topic is the order and arrangement of doctrine.
Sometimes theologies proceed upon the assumption that natural
properly precedes revealed theology in a doctrinal treatise. Usu
ally the arguments for God's existence drawn from man and nature
are set forth in the first division. But the plan involves a double
method of dealing with the material of theology which may be
confusing. These arguments, while possessing great force, do
not yield a strictly Christian conception of God. And they may
leave the impression that the Christian belief in God is based on
them as its chief foundation. Our own plan is to defer considera
tion of these proofs until the proof from the inner life of the
Christian has been set forth. This is, for the Christian himself,
the most convincing and satisfactory of proofs. And a great part
of the force of the proofs from man and nature, even when they
are given at the outset, is derived from the facts of Christian
experience which are tacitly assumed. We prefer, therefore, to
unify the doctrinal system by bringing all the elements of doctrine
into relation with the central reality, the redemptive grace of God
as manifested first in Jesus Christ himself, and secondly as mani
fested in the souls of believers.

Again, some treatises of theology in recent times have left
the doctrine of the Trinity to be treated at the end of the
doctrinal system. This is done upon the supposition that the
truth regarding the Trinity lies out on the borderland of knowl
edge. It is a sort of remnant left over after the main things have

[29]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

been set forth. This method, however, overlooks the vital rela
tions of the Trinity to experience itself. God is revealed as
Father, Son, and Spirit very early in the regenerate life, as will
appear. The practical uses and value of the doctrine of the
Trinity are very great. It is true that we need to practise due
reserve in the effort to give metaphysical definitions of the Trinity,
just as the New Testament does. But the doctrine itself needs
to be recognized, if not at the beginning, at least comparatively
early in the doctrinal development. The order adopted in our
treatment, then, differs from that of the older method in placing
the consideration of the general proofs of God's existence after
the exposition of the fundamental truths of Christian experience.
It differs from the sequence of doctrine as found in some more
recent treatises in placing the discussion of the doctrine of God
and of the Trinity earlier. This conforms to the requirements
of experience and its relation to doctrine.

The point at which the doctrine of the Scripture is expounded
accords with its nature as a spiritual authority as distinguished
from one that is merely legal or ecclesiastical. The New Testa
ment Scriptures were produced to set forth the meaning of the
revelation through Christ and the salvation which he brings. Its
authority is not due to decrees of early church councils. Its
power and fundamental importance for Christians are not based
upon external authority. They are due to its divine and self-
evidencing content. It is for us the Book of Life, since it dis
closes to us the sources of our spiritual life and the great his
torical and divine causes which produced it. On this account
it is best understood by those in whom the life itself has become
a reality. It will be noted also that in the use of the Scrip
tures to establish the truth of doctrines the method of biblical
theology is pursued. Where space does not forbid we trace the
Scripture teaching in its historical unfolding. This is not always
possible or necessary. But it is usually done in the treatment
of the more fundamental doctrines. It has an advantage over
the selection of proof-texts at random from the earlier and later
stages of the Old and New Testament revelation. It serves

[30]

Religion and Theology

to indicate the divinely guided process by which God made known
the truth to his people.

We have devoted an extended section to the relations between
Christian and other forms of knowledge. The aim in view is to
make clear and distinct for the student the reality of the knowl
edge which accompanies our salvation in Christ, its independence
and value for man's religious life, and its harmony with all other
forms of human knowledge. We consider this aim as vitally
important for Christian theology. There has been almost end
less confusion in the minds of men at this point. There is a con
stant tendency to stifle man's religious life, or reduce it to a
bare minimum of emotion, or of ethics, in the interest of some
alien principle which, in its proper application, requires no such
reduction. The provinces of the great kingdom of the human
spirit ought to live side by side in peace. It is only when one
province rises in revolt and seeks to reign supreme that con
fusion and strife arise. One of the chief advantages of consider
ing doctrine as expressing the meaning of the divine life in the
soul, is that it enables us to make clear for the intellect the place
of religious truth in the great universe of truth. And in doing
this we avoid any real conflict with science or other forms of
human culture. We discover thus also how all other intellectual
pursuits really end in the fundamental necessity for religion in
order to provide for the full development of man's spiritual life.

The following is a brief preview of the order in which the
material of this treatise is presented :

In Chapter II we give a definition of knowledge, with special
reference to religion, and indicate the sources of our religious
knowledge. This leads directly to Jesus Christ, the supreme
revelation of God to men.

In Chapter III we present a preliminary study of Christian
experience itself. Certain objections are pointed out, and the
nature of the Christian knowledge and the Christian certainty is
indicated. This leads naturally to the consideration of Christian
in relation to other forms of knowledge. Chapter IV is devoted
to this subject.

[31]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

In Chapter V the record of the Christian revelation, as given
in the Scriptures, is presented ; and in Chapter VI the Person of
Jesus Christ, who is himself the revelation of which the Scriptures
are the record.

In Chapter VII we consider the question of the deity of Jesus
Christ, and consider various phases of the modern discussion of
his Person. This is followed in Chapter VIII by a consideration
of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, which, along with the doctrine
of Christ's Person, occupies a central place in the Christian system.

In Chapter IX we consider the doctrine of God. This order is
adopted because it is only after the Christian knows God in re
demptive experience through Christ that he is in a position to
understand God the Father whom Jesus Christ revealed.

In the three succeeding chapters, X, XI, and XII, the doc
trines of Creation, Providence, and Sin are presented. In Chap
ter XIII the saving work of Christ is presented, and in Chapter
XIV the doctrine of Election, or God's initiative in salvation; in
Chapter XV, the Beginnings, and in Chapter XVI, the Continu
ance of the Christian Life, and in Chapter XVII, the doctrine
of Last Things. It will be noted that throughout the volume
the fundamental aim has been maintained, viz., to present Chris
tian doctrine as the necessary outcome and expression of the
Christian religion. The experiential element in Christian knowl
edge and Christian certainty has been recognized at all points.

4. There are many qualities of mind which may be mentioned
as assisting one who becomes a student of theology. But all these
qualities are dependent upon one fundamental attitude of the
mind and heart. The highest qualification for the study of
theology is the religious attitude. In religion a man approaches
God in a certain way. Through his communion with God certain
experiences arise. Particularly is this true of the Christian re
ligion. If one is to understand Christian theology, therefore, it
is essential that the attitude required by the Christian religion
be maintained. Theology is the interpretation of the religion, as
we have seen. The interpretation is impossible apart from the
reality itself. We conclude, then, that religion is the fundamental

[32]

Religion and Theology

qualification for the study of theology. In the light of this
general truth we may note the qualifications which come from
scholarship and general culture, from particular intellectual at
tainments, and from moral and spiritual qualities.

(1) All forms of scholarship and general culture aid in theo
logical study when they are employed in the interest of man's re
ligious life. Theology is, like philosophy, a very comprehensive
study. There is scarcely any branch of learning which may not
be made tributary to it. Especially is this true of every form of
scholarship pertaining to the Bible, such as knowledge of the
original languages, skill in exegesis and other departments of
biblical science. So also is a knowledge of general science and
philosophy valuable to the student of theology. The difficulty
and the danger in using all the general results of scholarly re
search in the study of theology is that some other interest or ideal
will displace that which is peculiar to Christian theology, the
religious interest and ideal. The religious life must be seen in
its totality of manifestation and in its true inner meaning and
value. If a student's chief interest is something else besides re
ligion, there is danger that religion be smothered or crucified.
Much of the so-called " objective and disinterested " study of
religion and theology is of this kind. In bringing scientific
methods to the study of religion and theology, the first thing
to remember is that religion is necessarily personal and subjective
to the student who hopes to penetrate to its true inward meaning.
Otherwise we never get below the surface of religion, and never
obtain the true material for the construction of theology.

(2) So also intellectual endowments of all kinds are valu
able in the study of theology. The ability to think clearly and
patiently, the desire for accuracy and thoroughness, the desire
for unity and coherency of view, are very admirable qualities in
the theologian. Especially is the quality which is usually called
intuition helpful in this realm. The word simply means mental
and spiritual insight, the feeling for truth based on broad intel
lectual sympathies. It is thus distinguished from the logical
process of deducing conclusions from premises. No man can ever

c [ 33 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

hope to attain great proficiency in theology who is unwilling or
incapable in the matter of patient and sustained effort. But the
rewards of such effort are abundant and of the highest value.

(3) The moral and spiritual qualities are the most fundamental
in theological study. We name some of these. A sense of de
pendence upon God and the guidance of his Spirit is necessary.
The more the student penetrates into the great mysteries of
religion, the more he is impressed with this sense of need for
divine help in understanding them and expressing their meaning.
Docility or tractableness, coupled with humility and openness
of mind, is a fundamental requirement. The desire to know
the truth and a submissive will go with the true theologian.
Obedience is indeed in a true sense an " organ of knowledge,"
although, of course, not the sole organ. Pride of opinion must
be laid aside if one is to come into living fellowship with God
in Christ. Jesus upon one occasion thanked God that he had
hid the truths of the gospel from the " wise and understanding "
and revealed them ''unto babes" (Matt. II : 25). This great
truth is slowly coming to recognition in modern psychology and
theories of knowledge. There are great realms of reality, great
tides of life and power which flow into man from God upon
condition of a docile and receptive attitude on man's part. In
other words, faith is the bond of union between man and God,
which brings not only new life and new power, but new knowl
edge. Theology is the systematic expression and arrangement of
that knowledge.

34]

CHAPTER II
THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

^•^HE question which stands out at the very beginning of a
111 treatise on theology is the following: Can we know God?
If we answer this in the affirmative we are confronted with
the further question: How do we know God? This latter leads
in turn to the further question: How is knowledge related to
faith? And finally, all these questions having been satisfactorily
answered, we need to define the relations between religious and
other forms of knowledge.

I. DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND OF RELIGION

The following definition gives briefly the essential elements of
knowledge :

1. That which is self-evident in the nature of reason: mathe
matical axioms illustrate this, such as that a straight line is the
shortest distance between two points.

2. That which is immediately given in experience, as the
manifestations of nature in a thunder-storm to a man passing
through it.

3. That which is cogently inferred from the given, as that light
ning struck a tree, inferred from the condition of the shattered
trunk.

It will be noted that in this definition there is an internal factor
of knowledge, the reason itself. There is also an external factor,
something which may, and often does, come from without, but
which is immediately given in our experience. There is also a
process of inference which includes both the internal factor,
reason, and the external factor, the object or objects given im
mediately to us in experience.

[35]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The above definition of knowledge is of great importance for
theology for the following reasons: First, it makes clear the
point that in religion and in theology, which is the systematic and
orderly explanation of religion, we have to do with real knowl
edge. In the second place, it keeps knowledge properly based in
a sound psychology. The definition recognizes the nature of
reason itself, as contributing to our knowledge, and does not
leave us passive recipients merely of impressions from without.
Man's reason gives its impress to all the contents of knowledge,
as a dipper gives shape to the water it takes up from a stream.
The definition also emphasizes experience itself, the life processes
by which we come into contact with the world about us. And
finally, it is a definition which recognizes the presence in the
knowing process of all the faculties and powers of man. Man is
not abstract reason, or abstract will, or abstract feeling. He is all
these in combination. No one of these ever acts by itself. This
conception of knowledge is of great importance for theology. It
is a point of vital contact and agreement between modern scientific
psychology and the Bible, as we shall see.

We proceed next to define religion. This will prepare the way
for a statement of how the knowledge of God arises, and how
theology becomes necessary as the orderly and systematic ex
pression of the meaning of religion. There are many ways of
defining religion. Some adopt the lowest types of religion, such
as fetishism, or animism, and claim that the various religions
are simply developments of these. Others begin at the other end,
and adopt some highly intellectual or philosophic principle as
containing the essence of all religion. Advocates of certain forms
of idealism adopt the latter method. Religion thus becomes a
process of the intellect in its reactions upon the world about us.
There are various other methods adopted for defining religion.

The best method, however, is not to take that which is lowest,
nor yet, in an abstract way, that which is highest, if we would
get a general definition of religion. The best method is to set
forth the essential elements which belong to the idea of religion
itself, and which are found to exist actually among religious men.

1 36 1

The Knowledge of God

This will naturally lead to the consideration of the Christian
religion, which is the ideal and completion of all lower and im
perfect approximations of religion.

In the most general terms, then, we define religion ( i ) as the
recognition of a power not ourselves, and an effort to establish
harmonious relations with it. (2) The object in religion is per
sonal, superhuman spirits, or a supreme personal spirit. (3) The
adjustment with these superhuman powers is in personal terms
and on the basis of personal relationships. This personal adjust
ment has in it at least the following elements : (a) Revelation on
the part of the God or gods worshiped, and (b) trust and worship
on the part of man. (4) Religion also includes, as essential to
the personal adjustment, an exercise of the feelings, the will, and
the intellect. The feelings come into action because there is a
sense of dependence and need. The will is involved because there
is an act of submission and conformity to the will of the object
of worship. The intellect is active because there arises a knowl
edge of the object of worship as the result of the religious adjust
ment. (5) We add that the aim of religion is redemption. Re
demption is distinctively a Christian word. But there is a lower
and elementary sense in which the idea exists in all religions.
Men seek to form alliances with the supreme powers to secure
deliverance in war, or to avoid dangers of various kinds. The
idea of redemption is completely transformed in the Christian
religion.

It will be noted that the definition just given is designed to set
forth the contents of religious belief as it is found among the
nations generally. They are the common elements held in a
more or less crude and indefinite way wherever there is religious
activity among men. It is to be noted also that the definition
does not enter upon the question of the degree of truth, or falsity,
of the forms of religion to which it applies. The aim in it is
simply to express the meaning of religion in a comprehensive
way. In order to make the definition inclusive of the Christian
religion, we need only to emphasize the central place of Jesus
Christ as the revealer and mediator of God to men along with

[37]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

those elements which arise out of the life redeemed in and
through Christ.

II. SOURCES OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE

There are a number of sources of religious knowledge. Most
of them are insufficient for man's religious needs unless combined
with the Christian revelation. We consider briefly a few of
these.

i. One of the sources of the knowledge of God is the facts of
nature and of man. In the past men have usually begun treatises
on theology by undertaking to prove the existence of God by
logical inference from nature and man. There are the arguments
from causation, from order and arrangement, from design, from
the moral order, from the necessities of reason itself, and others.
We shall have occasion to notice these at a later stage. They
are valuable in their place, and are by no means to be rejected.
But they are not primary and fundamental for Christian theology.
Their value will appear as subordinate to another source of knowl
edge about God.

The unsatisfactory nature of the arguments based on logical in
ference from man and nature appears in the following considera
tions, a. They never lead to the Christian view of God. Through
them we derive some idea of God's power, wisdom, purpose,
and other qualities of the divine Being. But they fail to give us
a satisfactory view of God's moral character and of his attitude
toward man, especially of his grace and forgiving love. b. Again,
the knowledge concerning God derived from the logical process
alone, is never really made the basis of the doctrinal systems of
Christian theologians. Even when they make such proofs of
God's existence primary in their treatment of the question how
we know God, they depart from it in the doctrinal system which
follows, c. Again, proofs of this character do not produce the
kind of certainty required in the religious life. We shall of course
have to indicate the kind of certainty required in the religious life.
For the present we simply remark that it is a certainty which
results from the actual contact of the soul with the religious

[38]

The Knowledge of God

Object. It is a certainty based on a knowledge of reality, and not
simply on the cogency of a logical inference, d. Proofs based
on logical deduction from the facts of nature are deficient in
another respect. Psychology, in its best modern forms, shows
clearly that our knowledge is built up out of our life experiences
rather than through the activity of the abstract reason. We live
and struggle and suffer; we are defeated, or we win victories;
we pursue aims and are disappointed; we make discoveries and
suffer losses. In this way we gradually discover truth. The truth
we acquire becomes thus a treasury made up of the " small
change," as it were, of human discovery in the struggle for life
and in our life adjustments. Nothing could be farther removed
from the facts than to suppose that truth arises chiefly through
the reasonings of wise men who have isolated themselves from
the struggles of life itself, e. Finally, the logical proofs of God's
existence by themselves are unsatisfactory because, with those
who have had the Christian experience, the logical deductions
are always colored by the experience. This is inevitable and
necessary from the nature of man. He cannot detach his reason
ing processes from his own nature.

2. A second method for arriving at the knowledge of God which
is much followed by moderns is to study the facts of the religious
consciousness. The psychology of religion has thus become a
distinct branch of inquiry. It has already yielded large results,
and will in the future no doubt become more productive. Here
we have an important point of contact between theology and
the other sciences. Theology observes the facts of man's religious
life, traces its laws, and sets forth the results in a formal way.
It is the method pursued in the physical sciences, except that in
theology and the psychology of religion we do not arrive at
mathematically exact laws. We do obtain knowledge based
on data, on real experiences. Our knowledge in religion thus
obtains a fact basis.

But the psychology of religion is insufficient for the purposes
of Christian theology unless it rises to the distinctively Christian
point of view. The question arises whether or not the experi-

[39]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

ences of the religious consciousness are merely subjective. Is the
Object of Christian faith real? Now the Christian religion ib
a historical religion, and as such it rises above the mere sub
jective play of the forces of consciousness. It becomes a cause
operative in and upon man's religious consciousness, yet remain
ing objective to that consciousness. It has introduced into the
world a set of religious forces which work in a very definite way.
It is necessary to reckon with Christianity on this basis if we are
to understand it.

3. A third source of religious knowledge is the study of com
parative religion. The universal religious life of mankind is an
interesting and significant fact. Christianity claims to present in
perfect form all the valid elements of religion found in any other
system. All it asks is candid recognition of the facts which are
peculiar and exceptional in itself in addition to those common to
all religions. The superiority of Christianity thus is easily made
to appear.

4. A fourth source of religious knowledge is the decisions of
ecclesiastical courts and councils as expressed in creeds and
articles of faith. Now as to creeds issued under ecclesiastical
authority, they are not and can never be original sources of
religious knowledge. For all except those who frame them, they
are second-hand knowledge, echoes rather than original voices.
They are sometimes of great value. They declare the doctrinal
beliefs of the age or people who put them forth. But religious
knowledge does not arise primarily by subscription to creeds. It
comes rather through the presence of God in the soul. Men
learn of God through the experience of God. One of the favorite
maxims of the schoolmen of the Middle Ages was, " I believe
in order that I may know." There is an element of truth in the
saying. But it may be very misleading. If it means by belief the
mere acceptance of an article of a creed on the basis of the im
plicit faith required by the Catholic Church, it is far from true.
If to believe, however, means to accept Christ in the saving sense
of the New Testament, then the saying is deeply true. To know
Christ by faith is to know God.

[40]

The Knowledge of God

5. We name the Bible as another source of the knowledge of
God. The Bible is indeed our supreme and authoritative literary
source of the revelation of God which leads to salvation. But
salvation is not conditioned upon our belief in, or acceptance of,
a book. The knowledge of God of which we now speak is not
derived from merely reading the pages of the Bible, or from
the most rigidly scientific interpretation of its teachings. God's
revelation of himself to us comes through his direct action upon
our spirits. He comes to us in redeeming grace. There is a
spiritual transaction within us. We are regenerated by his
power, and lifted to a new moral and spiritual level. It is then
that we acquire a new appreciation of the Bible. God thus be
comes our supreme authority, and the Bible is recognized as
the authoritative record of his supreme revelation.

6. It is now time to ask and answer the question, What is
our supreme source of the knowledge of God which gives rise to
the doctrines of the Christian religion ? The answer is the revela
tion of God in and through Jesus Christ. In order to develop
fully this fundamental thought we shall need to consider the
following topics: (i) Christ as a historic person; (2) Christ as
a superhistoric person acting upon history. In later chapters
we shall discuss the character and attributes of the God whom
Christ reveals, the nature of the experience which he mediates to
us, and the various other topics arising out of the religious ex
perience and requirements of theology.

(i) The first topic is Jesus Christ as a historic person. It is
needless to consider the question of fact as to the existence in
New Testament times of the being known as Jesus Christ. This
has never been questioned with sufficient seriousness to justify our
devoting space to it here. A summary of his earthly career and
its significance is called for by the relation which he bears to
Christian theology.

The essential points in the New Testament representation
are the following:

a. The Virgin Birth. Matthew and Luke both record the
story of his birth of the Virgin Mary. The authenticity of these

[41]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

records has been questioned. But the arguments against them
are inconclusive. Certainly the superhuman origin of Christ as
thus recorded is in complete harmony with the great features of
the life which followed.

We cannot consider in detail the issue as to the virgin birth.
Very strong reasons have led Christians of all ages to retain it
as an article of faith. The testimony of ancient manuscripts is
practically unanimous in favor of the accounts in Matthew and
Luke. Ancient versions are equally at one in the evidence they
afford. The witness of early Christian writers is also practically
unanimous in favor of the accounts. The Ebionites and some of
the Gnostics opposed the virgin birth. But there were reasons
for this. The former were anti-Pauline and the latter denied the
true humanity of Christ. Throughout Christian history the virgin
birth has been an accepted article of faith. It is, as is well
known, a part of the Apostles' Creed.

Some of the objections urged against it are the following: (a)
It is not in the Gospel of Mark or of John. Paul does not refer
to the virgin birth, nor does any other New Testament writer.
The reply is that Mark's purpose did not require him to deal
with the infancy of Jesus. He begins with the public ministry.
John's Gospel deals with the preincarnate Christ in the Prologue,
but his account harmonizes best with the idea of the virgin birth.
So also in Paul there is no express reference to the virgin birth.
But his doctrine in no way contradicts it. His lofty teaching as
to the preincarnate Christ also harmonizes with it. (b) Some
objectors hold that the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs are the
source of the birth stones ; while others urge that they are de
rived from Gentile sources. These mutually contradict each other.
One group says the virgin birth idea could not have had a Jewish,
the other that it could not possibly have had a Gentile origin.
But neither theory has shown a clear connection between the
alleged source and the accounts as we have them. They are sur
mises rather than scientifically valid conclusions from facts, (c)
It is urged also that in any case belief in the virgin birth is not
necessary to faith. If it is meant it is not necessary to saving

[42]

The Knowledge of God

faith, it is true in the sense that many who trust Christ do not
consciously accept or reject it. But this is apart from the main
question. The main point here is that we cannot determine
beforehand what is or is not necessary to the gospel. If the
virgin birth took place we may be sure that it was necessary. God
does not do the unnecessary thing in achieving his purposes. The
virgin birth is the best explanation of Christ's supernatural person.
It best explains his sinlessness. It best explains his headship
of the new spiritual race of men. It accords best with his calling
as divine Revealer and Redeemer of men.

b. We note next his sinlessness. Jesus Christ claimed to be
without sin.

He challenged men to convict him of sin. (John 8 : 46.) He
assumed an attitude of superiority to sinners in that he actually
pronounced forgiveness of sins in his dealings with them. (Matt.
9:2.) He announced that his blood was to be shed for the
remission of sins. (Matt. 26 : 28.)

c. Christ the revealer of God to men. He claimed to sustain
a unique relationship to God the Father, whose Son he was,
and whom he came to reveal. (John I : 18.)

We name the following elements in Christ's revelation of God :
First, he brings God near in a human life. Christ's revelation
of God was not primarily the communication of truths about God.
It was rather the embodiment in a human life of the reality of
the divine life. The truths arose out of the facts about God.
Again, Jesus reveals God as a Person. In nature and history there
are dim revelations of God. He appeared as Law, as Force, as
Life, as Purpose, as moral Principle, and in other ways. But
these are partial and fragmentary revelations, as we shall find.
The stages in the revelation of God could reach their climax only
in the highest medium known to us, personality. All the lower
forms of the revelation are thus unified in the personality of God
as revealed in Christ. God then was present in the personal
life of Jesus of Nazareth. The law was " given," but grace
and truth "came" (John i : 17). Again, the revelation in and
through Jesus Christ teaches us what God is in his character.

[43]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Natural theology may give us certain simple truths about God. It
does not give satisfactory knowledge of his moral qualities. We
may briefly sum up these qualities in the phrase righteous love.
This leads to the further statement that the revelation of God
in Christ gives knowledge of the attitude of God toward men.
He is a God of grace. He is intensely interested in the lives
of men. He watches over them and cares for them. He bestows
good gifts upon all men. He made men for himself. He con
stituted them for sonship in his eternal kingdom. In the highest,
deepest, and richest manifestation of his nature he is infinite
Father. As Father he has an eternal purpose of good toward men.

d. We consider next Christ as Redeemer of men. Redemption
is an essential element in the revelation of God in Christ. A
few brief statements will sum up in broad outline the redemptive
activity of Christ. First, in him God draws near to men for their
salvation. Not only does God draw near in Christ; Christ also
embodies the power of God for the salvation of men. He came
to seek and to save that which was lost. (Matt. 18 : n; Luke
15 : 4.) His "mighty works" were the evidence of the divine
power working in him. (Matt, n : 20; 13 : 54; Luke 9 : 43.)

Again, the redeeming activity of Christ had as an essential
part of it his sufferings and death. The New Testament ascribes
unique value and efficacy to the atoning sufferings of Christ. This
is not only true of the Epistles, but also of the Gospels. (Matt.
20 : 28; 26: 28.) The doctrine of the atonement will be
developed at a later stage. Here we mention it as essential to
Christ's redemptive work.

Finally, the resurrection of Christ, his ascension to the right
hand of the Father, and his intercession for us, are the necessary
crown and culmination of his redeeming activity.

(2) We are brought thus to the second general statement re
garding God's revelation in Christ, vis., that Christ is more than
a historic person. He is superhistoric. He acts upon history
from without. The personal self-revelation of God in Christ did
not end with the death of Jesus. This statement brings us to the
very heart of the meaning of Christianity. Did Jesus Christ

[44]

The Knowledge of God

continue to act in a causal and direct way upon the course of
Christian history? Does he now so act? The answer to these
questions will go far toward determining the answer to other
fundamental questions as to the meaning of the incarnation and
atonement. We do not hesitate to answer both questions in the
affirmative.

The facts of the earthly life must be combined with Christ's
creative activity afterward if we are to estimate properly his real
significance for the religious life of man. Christ was not only a
teacher sent from God, he was also spiritual creator.

The following considerations establish the truth of these state
ments :

a. We note first the explicit statements of Jesus himself as to
his continued activity after death. These are clear and sufficient.
He declared that he would build his church and that the gates of
Hades should not prevail against it. (Matt. 16 : 18.) He com
missioned the disciples to evangelize the world, with the promise
of his continued presence with them. (Matt. 28 : 20; Mark 16 :
20.) He promised the Holy Spirit through whom he would
speak to them. (John 14 : 16, 17; Acts i : 5.) He predicted
his own return in glory to judge the world. (Matt. 25 : 31-46.)
b. In accordance with these predictions we have the Pentecostal
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the witnessing of the apostles to
Christ's agency therein, and all the subsequent history of the book
of Acts. c. The uniform testimony of the Epistles confirms these
passages of the Gospels and the history in Acts. Everywhere
Jesus is regarded as the spiritual power acting upon men through
the Holy Spirit, d. We have also the career and writings of the
apostle Paul. Paul describes the origin of his spiritual career as
the moment when it pleased God to reveal his Son in him. (Gal.
i : 16.) Christ is everywhere the center of his gospel and the
efficient cause operating through him. One of the most con
vincing proofs of Christ's resurrection is the fifteenth chapter of
First Corinthians. Some have attempted to explain Christianity
through Paul. But this only removes the difficulty in appearance.
How can we account for Paul? Whence did he derive the

[451

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

creative energy which has revolutionized the civilization of the
West? Besides, the view is at variance with Paul himself, who
was passionately devoted to Christ as his own Redeemer and as
the Saviour of the world.

e. We mention the fact also that our earliest Christian litera
ture sustains the view we advocate. Paul wrote the Epistles to the
Romans, the Galatians, and the two Corinthian Epistles before any
of our Gospels were composed. These are our first interpretations
of the meaning of Christianity. They all assign to Jesus Christ
the place and function of spiritual creator.

/. Observe further the place of the resurrection in early Chris
tianity. The Christian movement began as a world-conquering
movement with the resurrection of Jesus. There is no material
divergence of view on this point among exegetes or historians.
Belief in the resurrection is conceded with practical unanimity to
have been the prime conviction behind the Christian movement.
The fact on which the belief rested is the only sufficient explana
tion of that movement.

g. The place of Christ as spiritual creator is confirmed by the
origin of the Synoptic Gospels. These arose as a result of the
spiritual life in Christ. These records were composed after the
four great Epistles of Paul. They did not cause, but were
caused by, the Christian movement.

Two documents are at present regarded by criticism as con
taining our oldest records of the life of Christ. One of these
is the Gospel of Mark ; the other, a common source behind
Matthew and Luke, from which both drew part of their material.
But in both these sources all the essential features of the life of
Jesus reappear as we have them in our present Matthew and Luke.
All the supernatural and transcendent elements of his person and
ministry remain.

Thus literary and historical criticism has failed completely to
eliminate the supernatural Jesus from the New Testament. The
outcome of critical research, therefore, is without result for the
antichristian view. It is seen more clearly than ever before that
there is agreement in essentials in all the New Testament repre-

[46]

The Knowledge of God

sentations of the place of Jesus Christ in our spiritual life. No
where do we find contradictions which affect the truth of the
gospel. It is beyond belief that if Paul had changed the com
monly accepted view as to the person of Christ, we should find
no question raised by any of his contemporaries. There is no hint
of a controversy in the New Testament over the modern issue
between a simply human, naturalistic, and a supernatural Christ.
This issue, however, has taken on a new form. It is now a
difference of philosophical theories or world-views. Opponents
of Christianity start with a world-view which denies the super
natural. They proceed on this assumption to explain the super
natural elements in the gospel by ascribing them to the imagina
tion of the early disciples, to the prevalence of myths which were
incorporated in the records, or to a tendency to read unwarranted
meanings into plain facts.

Conclusion

Our conclusion from the above brief survey of the sources
of our knowledge of God may now be stated. It is as follows:
Jesus Christ is the supreme source of religious knowledge for
men. In God's revelation of himself to men through Jesus
Christ, there are two chief elements. One of these is historical.
The other is experiential. Both are essential to Christianity. In
the life and words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth we have the
historical elements of God's self-revelation. But to these must
be added the superhistoric work of Christ, who continued to act
upon men through the Holy Spirit, after his ascension.

This leads to the idea of the record of the revelation of God
to men in the Scriptures. The Old Testament is the record of
the preliminary revelation. The New Testament is the completion
of the record. Through these New Testament Scriptures we
maintain connection with the historical facts on which Christianity
rests. These are our sufficient and authoritative source of knowl
edge for the great deed of the redeeming God who entered
humanity to save through Jesus Christ our Lord.

But the truth of the historic deeds and of the record of the

[47]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

deeds does not become ours in the full sense of the saving knowl
edge of God until we have the experience of God in our own
souls. " This is life eternal, that they should know thee, the only
true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ "
(John 17 : 3). The knowledge of God becomes ours then in
a threefold way: First, from the original source, Jesus Christ;
secondly, through the authoritative record, the New Testament ;
and thirdly, through the experience of God's grace in Christ,
wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. We can only understand Christ
and the Bible through the experience of God's saving grace. As
possessors of life we trace the stream of our life back to its source.
What we have just said does not imply that no importance is
to be attached to the knowledge of God which may come to us
from the study of nature, from comparative religion, from the
psychology of religion, from creeds issued by ecclesiastical au
thority, and from other similar sources. The point of emphasis
here is that these are secondary sources of religious knowledge,
not primary. The revelation of God in Christ is primary. We
arrive at a knowledge of that revelation through the Scriptures.
We pass to our study of the facts and their record through our
living experience of God's redeeming grace in Christ. Our first
task then is a preliminary study of the experience itself.

[48]

CHAPTER III
PRELIMINARY STUDY OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

I. Six ASSUMPTIONS

E assumptions of the argument from Christian experience
are to be noted here. There are six of these. They may
be very briefly stated.

First, it is assumed that the world external to man is real.
There are objects apart from man himself, apart from human
consciousness, which act upon that consciousness. The world
is not illusion, or the mere subjective creation of consciousness.
It is objectively real.

Secondly, it is assumed that we live in a universe. Things are
in some real sense a unity. Nature is not a chaos without mean
ing. The world is not a hopeless riddle.

Thirdly, that in this universe the parts cohere, or matcli each
other, in both the physical and the spiritual realm. We are not
to suppose that all is orderly and replete with meaning in the
realm of natural law, while truth and reality are beyond us in
the realm of spirit. On the contrary, the spiritual world is also
a realm of truth and order.

Fourthly, we assume that our faculties and powers when
normally related to objective reality are reliable. When we ob
serve, and feel, and think, and exert our wills in the struggles
of life, we may be sure that we are led thus into the possession
of real truth about the objects with which we deal. There are
no valid grounds for discrediting, but rather every reason for
trusting our powers.

Fifthly, it is assumed that we discover truth in the processes
of life, in the quest for and fulfilment of our needs. The dis
covery of truth is not an abstract process of the intellect merely.
It is not simply the result of an academic quest. The reason is

D [49]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of course necessary in the discovery of truth. But so is the will,
and so are the feelings. Man's whole nature is involved.

We assume, in the sixth place, the fact of human personality.
That personality is endowed with remarkable powers and capac
ities. It can act upon, and be acted upon, by natural objects.
The human self knows itself as distinct from and capable of in
teraction with other human selves. These are among the facts
which are given to us, not theories to be proved.

The above assumptions are among the simplest and most funda
mental postulates of all human thought. They are not peculiar
to the reasoning of the Christian theologian. They underlie all
science and all philosophy. They are essential to all knowledge.
Without them the very idea of truth itself would be impossible
or meaningless. Knowledge arises for the Christian, therefore,
on the same principles as for all other men. The difference is
that in the exercise of faith in Christ as the revealer of God,
and redeemer, he relates himself to a new object, a new realm
of reality, in a living and transforming way which others do not
know.

We can understand the nature of Christian experience only as
we keep in mind the fact that it is a transaction between the
divine and human persons. The key to the correct understand
ing of the matter is the idea of personality. It has to do with
man, not as intellect, or feeling, or will, or conscience simply,
but with man in the totality of his spiritual nature. The Chris
tian experience thus completes the ideal of religion, since it is
not only man submitting himself to God, but also God com
municating himself to man.

II. THE ANALYSTS OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

The initiative comes from the divine side. The message reaches
us through human agencies for the most part. Its chief import
is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. (2 Cor.
5 : 19.) Salvation from sin and its consequences is the burden
of the gospel call. Men are invited and commanded to turn

[50]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

from their sins, and to trust and obey God, who has come near
to them in Jesus Christ. It thus appears that Jesus Christ is
central and vital in the gospel message. It loses its meaning
apart from him.

1. The point of contact of the gospel message in men is the
consciousness of sin. There are other subordinate elements of
the sin-consciousness, such as the feeling of helplessness and de
pendence, and the sense of need. These are attended in varying
degrees by a sense of ill-desert and of guilt. In many instances
it takes the form of self-condemnation and of utter despair. In
the language of psychology this state of mind is sometimes de
scribed as an " inner contradiction," " a sense of wrongness with
us as we naturally stand," and " the divided self," and in other
ways.

The gospel intensifies the consciousness of sin. In the unre-
generate there are various degrees of its manifestation. Some
times it does not exist as sin-consciousness at all, but rather in
some of the less central forms, as the sense of dependence, or
a yearning for higher things. In every instance, however, the
effect of the gospel appeal, when the natural consciousness is
awakened, is a deepening of the sense of sin and guilt. The
creative action of the Holy Spirit in applying the gospel message
is seen in the fact that the sinner enters a new moral universe
with new moral powers as he passes from the stage of conviction
to that of regeneration.

2. The sinner's response to the gospel message is an act of
moral freedom. God graciously approaches men with the offer
of salvation through Christ. But the divine forces which operate
through the gospel are adjusted and adapted to evoke a free
moral response on man's part. Coercion here, as elsewhere in the
moral realm, would destroy the highest element in man's nature.

The human response to the gospel appeal consists, in the earlier
stages, of two acts : first, in a turning away from sin, and sec
ondly, in an act of trust in Jesus Christ as atoning Redeemer.
Repentance, or the turning away from sin, is a necessary part
of the transaction between God and man, since a renewal of

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

fellowship is impossible so long as the sin which had previously
destroyed the fellowship remains. Faith, or trust in God as re
vealed in the atoning Christ, is also essential, because the union
with God which brings a renewal of the spiritual nature is im
possible otherwise.

3. The divine activity in Christian experience is correlative with
the human. There are four aspects of that activity to be men
tioned. The first is forgiveness. The assurance of forgive
ness becomes a spiritual necessity so soon as sin is conceived as
a breach of fellowship with a divine person. If sin is regarded
as an infirmity or mistake merely, or as ignorance, or a stage
in man's growth simply, forgiveness would not be one of the
imperatives of religious experience. A pantheistic world-view
goes with these lower conceptions of sin. The Christian revela
tion exalts personality in God and man. Hence forgiveness be
comes an absolute necessity if the consciousness of redemption
is to be made effective for man.

Closely related to forgiveness is justification. Justification is
God's act, declaring the guilty free from the penalty of sin, and
it is grounded in the atoning work of Christ. Thus God justifies
the ungodly and provides for him a new standing. Forgiveness
and justification are related in the closest manner. In the New
Testament justification is the act of God which declares the
new relation. Forgiveness establishes that relation. In it man is
accepted and restored to God's favor.

Regeneration is the result of the direct action of the Holy
Spirit upon man's spirit. In it the penitent believer receives a new
nature. There is a radical change in the aim and purpose of
life, the advent of a new set of motives, and a moral and spiritual
renewal of the will. In Scripture the change of nature is de
scribed as the " new birth " or the " new creation."

Adoption is God's act, accepting the regenerate person as his
own child. In it the Holy Spirit imparts the filial consciousness
whereby we cry, " Abba, Father." Our sonship thus is a relation
of nature, since we have been born again, and also a relation
constituted by divine appointment, since it is God's gracious act.

[52]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

The consciousness of our sonship and God's Fatherhood is
the climax of the Christian consciousness. In it is folded every
possibility of moral transformation for the individual and for
society. In this filial consciousness indeed all experience and
all life are transfigured for the Christian and all lower experi
ences are fulfilled in their higher forms. We know obedience in
lower forms, but filial obedience is our supreme emancipation.
We know sin in our social relations, but the sense of sin against
the heavenly Father becomes the most poignant of all griefs and
sorrows. We know shame in our human relations; but in this
relation shame becomes self-abasement, by the side of which all
other shame seems mild. We have known hope, even religious
hope, based on reasoned doctrines of philosophies, perhaps. But
filial hope, based on the experiential knowledge of God the Father
is the climax and glorification of all hope. Love we have person
ally known, but this filial affection is even for us on the human side
a " love divine, all other loves excelling." Our filial consciousness
thus becomes the dominant consciousness of all life, and the
transforming fulfilment of every element of our being.

Conversion is man's outward act which corresponds to the
spiritual transaction just described in outline. The inward turn
ing of the will from sin to righteousness has its proper outward
expression in daily conduct. What we call Christian experience,
therefore, is not merely what is ordinarily known as the conver
sion experience. The conversion experience is the initial stage in
a lifelong process. Moreover, it concentrates in itself all the ele
ments which operate afterward. It is the Christian life in germ.
But we must avoid thinking of Christian experience merely in
terms of the conversion experience, which is but a fragment of
the whole.

The preceding analysis of Christian experience has been pur
posely made very brief. It constitutes the groundwork of the
doctrinal system which follows in this treatise. It is also vital
to the discussion of the question before us at present, viz., How
may we know God?

There are certain characteristics of the Christian experience

[ S3 }

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

which must be considered as a means of showing how it yields a
knowledge of God, and prepares the way for a general conclusion
on the subject.

III. THE SYNTHETIC UNITY OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

The first characteristic to be noted is the unitary nature of
the experience. By this is meant the inner connectedness, the
mutual dependence, and the moral and spiritual completeness of
the elements of Christian experience.

It is obvious at once, in the light of Christian experience, that
the divine and the human personalities are alike in their moral
and spiritual endowments and capacities. Since God made man
in his own image, he may communicate a knowledge of himself to
man ; and since man bears the divine image, he has capacity for
God.

Out of this human capacity for God arises the possibility of
the new birth. In regeneration God imparts his own nature to
man, renews in him the image which has been marred by sin.

Out of man's capacity for God arises also the necessity for a
free moral choice on man's part in order to restoration of the
divine and gracious activity within. It is clear that forgiveness
could not be bestowed upon the impenitent by God. Forgive
ness pronounced upon the unforgiving would be lacking in all
that is essential in forgiveness. It would be an arbitrary declara
tion merely, not a vital fact of the spiritual life. Hence repen
tance becomes an absolute essential in the moral and spiritual
transaction between God and man.

The necessity for justification appears in the same connection.
The forgiven man craves to know his permanent status before
God. Justification is God's answer to his awakened conscience.
He is repeatedly forgiven, but he remains justified. Christian
justification is thus not a legal element retained in a spiritual
religion. It is a divine act which abolishes the legal motive in
obedience, and prepares the way thus for the operation of the
filial motive. Just as regeneration imparts the new nature out

[54]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

of which the filial life arises, so justification constitutes a new
status wherein the filial motive has free play.

From the above it is seen that while the analysis of Christian
experience into its separate elements is necessary and valuable,
it is equally essential that we keep in mind the synthetic unity of
those elements. Most of the objections to the Christian doctrines
arise from the abstract method of handling the material. An
example or two will make this point clear. It is argued that the
atoning work of Christ, if a real satisfaction for our sins, logically
releases us from the obligation to righteousness. " Let us sin
that grace may abound." But enlightened Christian experience
never falls into an error so superficial. It knows that the grace
which wrought through the atoning work of Christ, wrought also
within the soul the deepest impulse to righteousness. It sees
clearly that it is only by attempting to separate these inseparable
things that the false conclusion is reached. Only an abstract
method, a false logic, which attempts to separate the parts of an
experience which is one and indivisible, can result in such an
error.

In like manner repentance may be mistaken for mere reforma
tion, and faith for blind belief, when taken apart from their
place in the organic unity of Christian experience. Repentance is
" toward God." It is an element in a personal transaction which
awakens the will and emotions. The whole nature is stirred to the
depths in this personal return to God in obedience. So faith is
vital union with God through Christ, and not the acceptance
merely of propositions about God or Christ.

Again, it 'is objected that justification gives a fictitious or fiat
righteousness. But vital Christian experience knows that the end
and result of justification is not the establishment but the abolition
of a fictitious legal righteousness, and the foundation for the
most vital filial love and obedience. Justification does not establish
a legal relation between God and man, but rather abolishes the
legal relation. In each of these cases, and in many others, the
objector takes some element of Christian experience out of its
conrection in the living whole and arrives at some unwarranted

[55]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

result. We can only understand the parts of Christian experi
ence in the light of the whole. One of the conclusions which
already thrusts itself upon us from the preceding is that in Chris
tian experience we are dealing with a distinct order of facts, a
system of moral and spiritual forces, whose laws may be traced
and systematically set forth. But we are also warned against
the danger of a purely analytic and abstract method of dealing
with facts and forces whose true meaning can be found only in
the life processes in which they operate. Doctrine must keep in
vital touch with religious experience. But religious experience
inevitably yields itself to doctrinal expression if it be of a high
order. In Christian experience we deal with a group of spiritual
causes which produce their proper effects in human consciousness
and in man's moral and spiritual activities. To interpret this sys
tem of spiritual causes and effects is to set forth the doctrines of
the Christian religion. But here again we remind ourselves that
the objective facts of God's historic revelation in Christ, and
the record of those facts in the New Testament under the
guidance of God's Spirit, constitute the basis of all we know of
God in experience.

IV. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

It is not necessary that we enter minutely into the details of the
psychology of Christian experience. These will appear in many
forms in the course of the doctrinal discussions which follow.
Here it is only necessary to indicate a few of the more general
and fundamental facts of psychology which are related directly
to Christian experience.

A fundamental conception of psychology is that of the " self "
and its development. The infant does not distinguish itself from
its surroundings. Sensation gradually instils this truth. When
the babe burns its finger in the flame of the candle, it may be an
epochal event in the development of its self-consciousness. The
gradual process results in the distinction between the self and the
world, the " me " and the " not me."

[56]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

The self as acted upon by the world is discriminated further
into the material me, the social me, and the spiritual me. The
material me has as its center the body. Its chief interests are
the things which affect the body. The social me is the self as it is
affected by other persons. The spiritual me is the self in its
higher interests as distinguished from the lower.

The development of the self is attended by internal struggle
and conflict in many forms. The various selves clash with each
other. In order to win social preferment the material self must
be sacrificed. And sometimes the good opinion of our fellows
must be surrendered for a higher good. It is here that the study
of the natural consciousness leads to the discovery of the deep
religious implications which are involved in its activities.

We note one path by which the natural consciousness awakens
religious expectations. In the efforts of the social and spiritual self
we seek the approval of those about us. We idealize our own so
cial self and also the companion or friend whose approval we seek.
Ultimately the ideal judge of our conduct takes, in our thinking,
the form of God. The desire for God is awakened in our social
nature in the highest ranges of its desires. We fear the condem
nation and desire the approval of the Supreme Judge. Says Pro
fessor James : 1 " This judge is God, the absolute mind, the ' Great
Companion.' We hear in these days of scientific enlightenment
a great deal of discussion about the efficacy of prayer, and many
reasons are given us why we should not pray, whilst others are
given us why we should. But in all this very little is said of the
reason why we do pray, which is simply that we cannot help
praying. It seems probable that in spite of all that ' science ' may
do to the contrary, men will continue to pray to the end of time,
unless their mental natures change in a manner which nothing we
know should lead us to expect. The impulse to pray is a necessary
consequence of the fact that whilst the innermost of the em
pirical selves of a man is a Self of the social sort, it can yet find
its only adequate socius in an ideal world."

It would seem, then, that in the unfolding of the natural con-

" Psychology," p. 192.

[57]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

sciousness there are four stages which may be clearly distin
guished: (i) The conception of the self; (2) the conception of
the world; (3) the conception of other selves; (4) the conception
of the highest self, God.

Now the analysis of Christian experience which has preceded
shows how this outreaching and upward striving of the natural
religious consciousness is met and answered in the gospel of
Christ. The sense of sin and dependence which arises in the
struggle takes a new form and finds a new satisfaction in Chris
tian experience. So also the Supreme Judge and Great Com
panion discloses himself to us, not as an idea merely for the
reason to grasp, but as a Reality which we experience in our
inmost being.

This leads to the statement that Christian experience arises
as the result of the response of our entire nature to the gospel
call. Christian experience is primarily an adjustment of per
sonal relations between God and man. The disturbed relation
ship is chiefly in the moral realm. The disturbing factor is sin.
The restoration of man is fundamentally a moral and spiritual
restoration. But this necessarily involves the will, the feelings,
and the intellect. It involves the will, because the submission of
the human to the divine will is of the essence of the readjust
ment of relations. It involves the emotions, because a trans
action which is so far-reaching and profound inevitably stirs men
to their depths. It involves the reason, because there is an irre
pressible desire to define and understand a process so revolutionary
in its outcome.

The question has been raised whether or not God works the
religious change in man through operations in the region of the
subconscious mind. There are strong considerations in favor of
the view. Among them are the mysteriousness and sometimes the
suddenness of the change. The process is one which the subject
himself cannot always fully trace. It must be admitted, indeed,
that there is an inexplicable element in regeneration. " The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but
knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth. So is every

[58]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

one that is born of the Spirit" (John 3 : 8). In all probability
the Spirit acts upon us in ways unknown to us in the subconscious
region of our spirits.

On the other hand, however, the essential facts of regeneration
and conversion present themselves in the center of conscious
ness. There is reciprocal action between God and man. This
reciprocity and mutuality are necessary to the completeness of
the divine operation. The response of our wills, the conscious
acceptance of Christ as Saviour and Lord, are the human re
sponse to the divine approach without which the moral change
could not take place. If the operations of God were confined to
the subconscious region, it would resemble the action of a physical
force. It would be without the essential marks of free moral
action. The subject of God's regenerating activity may not, at the
time, fully grasp or define the significance of the moral change.
The analyzing activity of the intellect will come into play after
ward upon the facts, but notwithstanding this, the change itself
will be effected within the framework of consciousness.

The study of the psychology of religion reveais many varieties
of Christian experience. Thus types of conversion are distin
guished, in which particular phases of the soul's reactions come
into prominence. There are emotional conversions, in which the
feelings predominate ; intellectual conversions, in which the reason
plays a leading role. In others the will and a new course of
action stand out most distinctly. There are child conversions,
and those of adults, with varying manifestations. There are
some which result from a gradual and slow educational process.
In others the crisis arises suddenly and the decision follows
quickly. In some, again, the transition is only known in its after
effects. The subject is not conscious of it at the time. In recent
years much emphasis has been given to the value of the period of
adolescence for the conversion of boys and girls.

In reference to these types of experience several statements
may be made. The first is that they simply recognize the varying
types of human personality. He would be a very poor physician
of souls who tried to force all varieties of human religious

[59]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

experience in the same mold. Experiences will vary so long as
people vary. Spiritual diagnosis requires skill in reading symp
toms and breadth in interpreting them and in prescribing.

Again, the gospel is adapted to every type of man and woman.
It appeals to no particular cast of mind, no particular tempera
ment or nationality. Its aim is to readjust the most fundamental
relations of all types and temperaments, the relationship between
the soul and God.

We must add, however, that with all the types and varieties
in Christian experience, there are certain universal and indis
pensable elements. One is the turning away from self and sin.
Another is trust in God for forgiveness. Another is the direct
action of God's grace in the soul, creating it anew in Christ. Be
coming a Christian is more than the evolution of the natural man.
It is a rising to a new moral and spiritual level through God's
grace. Adolescence is no doubt an important period for parents
and teachers and spiritual leaders to recognize. But in itself it
has no religious significance. It may, under evil influences, mark
a decline in the soul's life. It is a great opportunity for good or
evil.

V. THE NATURAL AND THE REGENERATE CONSCIOUSNESS

It is important to discriminate carefully between the natural
and the regenerate consciousness. Converted men who have an
intelligent grasp of the nature of the change which has taken
place in them, are immovably confident of the divine factors in
conversion. Unconverted men are often equally immovable in
their rejection of the Christian explanation. The Scriptures ex
plain this controversy very simply. It is the conflict between the
natural and the regenerate consciousness. ' The natural man
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (i Cor. 2 : 14).
" But he that is spiritual judgeth all things" (i Cor. 2 : 15).

It is too much to expect that any exposition of the relations
between the natural and regenerate consciousness will prove fully
satisfactory to unconverted men. But something may be done to
make clear the reasons for the inevitable failure of the natural

[6ol

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

man to appreciate the regenerative character of Christian ex
perience.

The Christian passes from the experience of the natural to
that of the regenerate state. Looking back upon the spiritual
change in himself, he gives an account of it which meets fully the
requirements of the situation. The account contains the follow
ing elements:

1. The struggle and failure of the natural self. Any ordinary
psychology presents the facts. They have been indicated in a
preceding section of this work. 'A study of religious phenomena
in any department of comparative religion confirms the conclusions
of ordinary psychology. In brief, it is the natural self striving
for self-realization and being defeated. The material self, the
social self, and the spiritual self bound together in the unity of a
personal life, are yet unable to find harmonious adjustment. The
moral, intellectual, and emotional ideals come short of realization.

2. The gospel call to repentance and faith. Christ is presented
to the soul. A new sense of sin is awakened through the power
of the Holy Spirit within. At length the will is surrendered to
God in Christ.

3. The incoming of a new power from without into the heart
and life. It is known to be a new spiritual power from without
because it is preceded by a sense of helplessness and dependence.
The consciousness of moral and spiritual weakness is an essential
element of the experience itself. Schleiermacher did not give an
adequate account of religion when he defined it as the feeling
of absolute dependence. But he sounded therein a true note. The
Christian redemption is in explicit terms redemption from a
state of moral need and helplessness. It is the combination of
this consciousness of need, with the consciousness of moral re-
enforcement and power that imparts immovable conviction to the
regenerate man. The regenerate moral and spiritual conscious
ness thus transcends the natural moral and spiritual consciousness
in a form which makes doubt as to the reality of the transform
ing power impossible. The regenerate consciousness thus con
firms the verdict of the natural in its struggle and failure. The

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

struggle of the natural self for self-realization finds the solution
of the problem and the end of the struggle in the discovery of
the true self in the regenerate life. There appears thus to be
not an unintelligible relation or inexplicable breach between the
natural and regenerate consciousness, but rather a close and
intimate connection.

4. Three new elements in the regenerate consciousness may be
noted. Human personality contains at least three essential ele
ments — will, intellect, and emotions. We may therefore contrast :
a. the natural and regenerate will-consciousness ; b. the natural and
regenerate intellectual consciousness ; c. the natural and regenerate
emotional consciousness.

a. The natural and regenerate will-consciousness. Freedom of
the will, broadly defined, is self-determination. The power of
contrary choice is one form of the manifestation of this self-
determining power. But it is not the highest or truest freedom
of the will if a man is self-determined wholly or predominantly
to evil. In being so determined he misses the end and goal of
his being. True freedom is self-determination to the morally and
spiritually good.

Now the natural will-consciousness is a consciousness of failure
in the region of the will. The highest moral goal always remains
remote, unattained. The regenerate will, on the contrary, is armed
with an entirely new power for moral achievement, and while the
final victory is deferred, there is the inward assurance of a renewal
which guarantees a successful outcome. The natural will first
finds itself in the regenerate life.

b. The natural and regenerate intellectual consciousness. The
highest knowledge is the knowledge of God. The natural con
sciousness often arrives at the idea of God either by deductions
from natural phenomena, or the idea of God which is regarded
as necessary to human thought. But at best the result of the
efforts of the natural consciousness is a bare theism. Whether
grounded in deductions from nature or from human personality, it
remains an objective theoretical conception.

In the regenerate consciousness, on the other hand, the idea

[62]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

or conception of God gives place to the fact and reality of God
in a living experience. God now gives himself to us. He is a
datum, a fact of life, not to be explained away, but to be reckoned
with. The intellectual search for God now gives place to the
discovery of God and immediate knowledge of him. Thus in
Christian experience the highest form of knowledge is attained,
and man realizes in the highest degree the intellectual ideal to
ward which he had been struggling.

c. The natural and regenerate emotional consciousness. In the
natural state man seeks to realize an emotional ideal. He desires
inward peace and blessedness and a well-grounded hope. He
seeks also an ideal of love in motive and object. But here again
in his natural striving he fails of complete attainment. He
works out, intellectually perhaps, certain grounds on which he
bases the expectation of -peace and blessedness in the future.
He may attain to a conception of a reasoned immortality. So
also he may cherish an intellectual ideal of love. But in the
midst of all he fails to attain to fellowship with the Great
Companion, the Divine Friend, the Supreme Judge of life and
conduct. But in the Christian redemption through Christ, the in
ward peace and blessedness and the ideal of love become living
realities. Man comes to a state of rest in his emotional life.
The springs of tranquillity are opened within his spirit. He rests
in God. Out of his fellowship with God there arises a new-
moral impulse to love which makes the regenerate man the ser
vant of his fellow men.

VI. THE TRANSITION FROM THE NATURAL TO THE REGENERATE

STATE

The transition from the natural to the regenerate state is to
be noted in the next place. We have been contrasting the natural
and regenerate consciousness. How is the transition from the
one to the other made? In the analysis of Christian experience
it appeared that conviction for sin, repentance, and faith are the
terms descriptive of the human conditions of the transition. In

[63]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

other words, it is the renunciation of the natural self in order
to the realization of the true self. But it is the renunciation of
the natural self only as sinful and in abnormal relations with
God. Jesus Christ has become at once the sin-bearer and the
moral goal for men. All that is potential in the natural man is
released, and he is put in the way of complete self-realization
by faith in Christ. This is what Jesus means by the saying:
" He that findeth his life shall lose it ; and he that loseth his life
for my sake shall find it" (Matt. 10 : 39).

It must be kept in mind that the transition from the natural
to the regenerate state is not by means of forces resident in
the natural man, and by an evolution of those forces. The change
is of the nature of a new spiritual creation by divine power.
This is not to say that it is always cataclysmic and sudden. It
often comes gradually and quietly. The chief point is the entrance
into the consciousness of new divine spiritual power.

There arises thus a new regenerate personality. The regenerate
consciousness is that of a new moral and spiritual personal life
with very definite and clear connection with the preceding natural
life. Paul expresses it thus: " I have been crucified with Christ;
and it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me " (Gal. 2 :
20). The new " I" in Paul bore a very definite and conscious
relation to the old " I." The transition from the one to the
other was through a new relation to Jesus Christ. Paul had
ceased to be a separate and isolated individual and had risen to
the estate of a moral and spiritual person. His personality was
incomplete apart from fellowship with God, and he entered into
that fellowship through faith in Christ, the Revealer of God.

VII. OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED

The preceding description of the natural in its relation to the
regenerate consciousness will aid us in understanding certain ob
jections.

i. First, there is an intellectual objection. The natural reason
approaches the facts of the spiritual life and concludes that the

[64]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

explanations of the regenerate life of the Christian are wholly
irrational. Nothing is easier than to show the logical fallacy and
inconsistency of the Christian explanations on the assumptions
of the natural consciousness. The difference, however, is not a
difference between the natural and regenerate reason as reason.
The reasoning processes are unchanged by conversion. It is a
difference of data on which the reasoning powers are exerted.
The contents of consciousness are radically different in the two
cases. The Christian makes no claim to superior reason. But
he knows he is in possession of new moral and spiritual realities.
His nature is sustained by new forces. Hence he is inevitably
led to conclusions which the natural man fails to appreciate.

It follows from the preceding that practically all the objections
of the natural man to the Christian account of religious experi
ence are due to an effort to reduce the factors of that experience
to the natural plane. There are no resources in the natural life
to produce the Christian results. The prime condition for under
standing the regenerate life is to know the forces which operate
in it.

2. There are also moral objections. The unconverted man op
poses the Christian requirement of renunciation, of humility, of
faith, and repentance. He denies that he has any such sense of
helplessness and sin as has been described. On the other hand,
he feels a deep antagonism to the moral and spiritual conditions
involved in Christian experience.

Now to the Christian man there is nothing strange in this. He
has passed through this phase of experience also. Indeed, it is
his previous sense of self-sufficiency, and his previous antago
nism to the condition of Christian experience which constitute
an essential element in his present certainty. Because he has
transcended that earlier stage of the natural consciousness he
has come into the fulness and freedom of self-realization in the
divine life. In the light of the present fulness and freedom and
power of his personal spiritual life he knows how fragmentary
and inadequate was that earlier stage. The regenerate man has
thus converted into an element of certainty the precise elements

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

in the natural state which led him at first to reject the Chris
tian call.

Thus it appears that the three elements which hindered the natu
ral man at first become elements of the knowledge and certainty
which come with Christian experience. The sense of weakness
and dependence, the doubts of the Christian explanation, and the
antagonism to the Christian moral conditions, all become elements
of the certainty which ensues upon conversion. All of them are
transcended and overcome in the new spiritual life. They have
all been eliminated as disturbing factors of the mind and heart
and gathered up into the new victorious life as the background
of a new certainty in Christ.

The controversy thus resolves itself into a question of how
we may know the divine life, whether by submission, docility,
humility, and self-renunciation, or otherwise. For the Christian
there is the sense of the fulfilment of all the ideals and longings
of his being in the experience he has of God in Christ. He has
passed out of death into life. He has been created anew in Christ
Jesus unto good works. He has found himself in a manner so
complete and satisfying that to doubt the forces which operate in
him would be to doubt himself.

The attitude of the regenerate man to the natural man, then, is
not one of vaunted superiority in intellectual power. It is simply
the claim that the natural man may attain to moral heights, may
find an intellectual and spiritual satisfaction, may come to a self-
realization, by compliance with the Christian requirements, which
he cannot attain otherwise. This is at once a higher view of the
capacity and possibilities of the natural man than he himself
admits. The prime condition of this self-realization is the self-
renouncing humility of spirit which is analogous to that which the
scientific man practises in his efforts to discover the secrets
of nature. Here of course it is not nature, but the revelation of
God in Christ to which the approach is made, and from which
the response comes. Ultimately, therefore, the issue is over the
question of how we may know God. The Christian answer is
that to know him we must be converted and become as a little

[66]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

child. (Matt. 18 : 3.) We are led thus to our next topic, which
is the knowledge of God which arises through experience and the
Christian certainty which attends it.

VIII. How KNOWLEDGE ARISES IN CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

We call to mind here the necessary presupposition of all knowl-j
edge. It is that we live in a coherent universe. If there are
truths, they must correspond to facts and realities. The truths
are parallel to the facts. A coherent system of truths arises out
of a coherent system of facts. And of course this implies that we
are so constituted that our mental nature corresponds to the world
about us and above us. Our intellect must be congruous with
the objects we know, else there could be no knowledge. All this
is true in the sphere of religion, as in other spheres.

The knowledge which comes to us through Christian experience
arises out of the realities which are given to us in experience.
Our knowledge is not merely " information about " these realities,
but " acquaintance with " them. They are given to us. And yet
our own minds are not in a merely passive state. The mind itself
is active. Indeed the whole of man's spiritual nature is aroused in
the redeeming grace of God in Christ. The Christian is rationalistic
in his conception of knowledge because the reason comes into play.
He is emotionalistic because his feelings enter into the transaction.
He is moralistic and voluntaristic because his conscience and will
are involved. Above all, he is personalistic in his conception of
knowledge because what he knows is the result of the reaction
of his total nature upon God as revealed in Christ. It is the result
of the interaction of persons.

The elementary Christian experience becomes definite knowl
edge by the same kind of processes which operate when other
forms of experience are converted into formal knowledge. The
infant mind slowly organizes the data of the earliest experience
into a coherent world. By discrimination various objects are
singled out from the mass. The pieces of furniture in the house,
the parts of the house, objects in the surrounding region, are dis-

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

tinguished from each other, and slowly the mind builds up its
universe. So also in the inner world of Christian experience.
By means of discrimination and association, by means of intuition,
and memory, and inference, and all the resources of the soul for
dealing with the spiritual realities of religion, the Christian builds
up the knowledge of his spiritual universe. There is an analytic
process by which the elements of experience are separated from
each other, and a synthetic process by which they are recombined
with each other and with new forms of knowledge as these arise
in experience. In all these processes the Christian is guided by
the Scriptures. The revelation of God in Christ is the foundation
which supports him in all his mental and spiritual activities. But
the processes of the mind continue just the same.

The Christian doctrinal system thus arises out of the facts of
Christian experience. It is not implied, however, that the data
of experience are sufficient apart from the New Testament. It is
in and through his experience that the Christian acquires a vital
relation to the Xew Testament which enables him to understand,
it. This point will be discussed in a succeeding section. Here we
are chiefly concerned with the knowledge contained in the ex
perience itself.

IX. ELEMENTS OF KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE

The Christian experience yields a number of elements of knowl
edge which may be set forth as follows :

1. First of all, we know therein a power from without which
has begun to act and continues to act within us. It is known
as a power not previously in our consciousness. It sought us and
found us. It is thus completely discriminated from our previous
subjective states.

2. Secondly, it is known to us as a spiritual power. We are
familiar with the action of physical forces. We know this power
now acting upon us to be entirely different from any form of
physical power. We also easily discriminate it from the social
forces which operate about us. The new power within possesses

[68]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

qualities entirely distinct from these. This does not overlook
the social influences which usually mediate the redemptive power
to us. The gospel is preached to us ; Christian lives illustrate it ;
the power of Christ finds a medium in the church and other
Christian agencies. All this is recognized. But the power which
we know in redemption is as distinct from that which resides in
these media by themselves, as it is from our natural power.

3. In the third place, we know this new power operating within
us as redemptive. Through it has come the blessing of forgive
ness and justification, and along with these the sense of recon
ciliation with God and sonship to him. But especially do we know
this new power within as recreative of our moral nature. The
moral center of gravity of our being has been completely changed.
A new spiritual energy has created the soul anew in Christ Jesus.
We have been redeemed from the guilt and power of sin.

4. In the fourth place, we know the new power within us as
personal. This may be made clear by considering several essential
phases of the experience itself. In it our own personality is
created anew. There arises a new " I " in contrast with the old
" I." There is of course continuity between the old and the new
through memory and other elements of consciousness. But in
motive and aim, in the direction and purpose of the life, in the
moral energy which supports it, in the consciousness of power for
moral achievement, there has taken place a complete revolution.
Remnants of the old " I " remain, and antagonize the new. But
this very contrast and inward struggle between the old and the
new, the deadly clash between what we once were and what we
now are, is an element in the guaranty to us that regeneration
has taken place in us. Thus we come to ourselves in the Chris
tian redemption. We win our own true personality and discover
that for which we were naturally constituted, but which we were
unable to attain in our natural state.

Now a most clear and distinct element in our regenerate con
sciousness is the recognition of Another, of a Presence which is
dealing personally with us. We become in the highest degree
conscious of our own freedom through our interaction with the

[691

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

divine and spiritual Person whom we know in experience. Our
own free response to the approach of divine love, and the response
of that love to us, belong to the very inward nature of the ex
perience itself. Our fellowship with the regenerating power is a
fellowship in personal terms. The sense of sin and reconciliation,
the acts of trust and obedience, of prayer and praise, and all
other elements in the experience involve personality in the religious
object.

That this is true is clear from the effort to express the meaning
of the experience in other than personal terms. If it is assumed
that the power we know is below the personal level, most of the
significance of the Christian experience is lost. If the reality we
know, the religious object, be devoid of intelligence, self-con
sciousness, and will, then we can only conceive of it as an atten
uated form of physical force. It is without the attributes of
spirit, and all fellowship in personal terms is illusion. Sin and
righteousness, faith and hope and love are without meaning.
Pantheistic reabsorption in the All is then the only possible
outcome of our personal life.

If it be asserted that the religious reality or object is above
the personal plane and that it retains the qualities which we
recognize as belonging to personality, there is no serious objection.
It is but another way of saying that God the infinite is greater
than man the finite. The interests of the Christian experience are
conserved when we recognize the fact that the attributes of
personality necessarily belong to the object worshiped by the
Christian.

In what has just been said let it be clearly understood that we
are not engaged merely in a process of reasoning by which we
deduce the idea of God's personality from some general principle.
It is rather a process of observation and explanation. It is a
matter of fact beyond all gainsaying, that the regenerate life of
the Christian is carried on with the religious object in personal
terms. We only assume what is necessary to all truth in all
spheres, indeed to the very conception of truth, viz., that the uni
verse is a coherent system, and that the parts of being correspond

[70]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

with each other. The effort to explain the reality known in ex
perience by the Christian, therefore, in impersonal or non-personal
terms is sheer arbitrariness, unwarranted by the facts. It is an
effort to impose upon facts criteria of explanation wholly apart
from the facts themselves. The only interest the Christian has
in the matter is that the facts be permitted to speak for themselves.

5. In the fifth place, we know the religious object in our Chris-
tion experience as triune. We come thus to the transcendent
objects of faith. Our knowledge of them, however, is due to the
fact that they are immanent objects of knowledge as well as
transcendent. We know them as being within and without con
sciousness at the same time. We have to do in Christian experi
ence with the infinite, personal God. It was our moral relations
with him which gave rise to our earliest religious experience and
interest. The gospel came to us, and we found God revealed in
Christ. Thus God became an object for our contemplation. As
objective to us we found what God is in his relations to man
through the revelation in Christ. But we also needed to know
what God is as subject. We needed an interior view of God, a
union with him in personal fellowship. This blessing we ob
tained through the operation of the Holy Spirit within us. Thus
we know God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was through
the atoning work of the incarnated Christ that we found and
experienced the forgiving love of God, and it was through the
operation of the Holy Spirit that we became united with God in
holy love.

There are objections, of course, which are urged against this
Trinitarian interpretation of Christian experience. These we shall
take account of when we come to treat the doctrines of Christ's
person and the Holy Spirit. Here we are simply analyzing
the experience itself. There is no possibility of gainsaying the
facts. All the great creeds of Christendom express the consensus
of Christians in Trinitarian forms of statement. Sometimes per
haps they overshoot the mark by attempting to express more than
the Scriptures or experience may warrant. We are of course not
bound to subscribe to this or that particular formulation of the

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

doctrine of the Trinity. But our own Christian experience and
the clear teaching of the New Testament require a doctrine of the
Trinity. Otherwise faith will remain inarticulate and vague and
never acquire the strength necessary for self-defense, or the clear
ness required for scientific statement.

We add one point in anticipation of the later discussion of the
questions connected with the Trinity. It is this: Most objections
to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity start from a false premise.
They begin with some presupposition as to how the ultimate
reality must be constituted, and end by a denial that it can be
constituted as the Christian doctrine requires. They indulge in
metaphysics of a most radical character, to determine beforehand
what God must be in himself. The strength of the Christian reply
is that it constructs its Trinitarian doctrine on a fact basis. Meta
physical questions are involved, indeed, but the Christian makes
the metaphysics wait on the facts and not the facts on abstract
metaphysics.

X. THE CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE AND THE CHRISTIAN CERTAINTY

It is in order next to indicate the nature of the certainty which
the Christian knowledge yields. In a sense knowledge is cer
tainty, and certainty is knowledge. But there are varieties of
knowledge and degrees of certainty. Hence the importance of
defining more precisely the kind of certainty which the Chris
tian experience brings.

r. On the negative side several things are clear. In the first
place, the certainty of the Christian is not that of mathematical
proof. The exact terms of mathematics do not apply in the
realm of free personal action. Nor is the Christian certainty
that of mere logical or philosophical inference from objective
facts. The mind may acquire a high degree of confidence in a
given proposition because it seems in general to accord with
the rational demands of his nature. The Christian certainty in
cludes this element beyond a doubt. But it is important to observe
that it is far more than this. Nor, again, is it simply the certainty

[72]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

of a moral ideal. Moral ideals arise out of man's moral con
stitution and he often holds them as grounded in the nature of
the ultimate reality, with profound conviction. Christian cer
tainty includes this element also, but far more. Again, the
Christian certainty is not merely the certainty which belongs to
religious values. The highest religious values are involved, but
in Christian experience they are verified in ways unknown in
connection with ordinary religious values. The need and value
of religion and its function in human struggle may be recog
nized apart from the system of forces which operate in Christum
experience. ' The will to believe " is a universal human right.
Life itself vindicates the act of religious belief wherever and
whenever it is sincerely exercised. But even belief, when exer
cised exclusively as an act of the will, is not the same as Chris
tian trust. A value therefore apart from the religious object
does not answer the needs of religion.

2. We note next positively that the Christian certainty is a
certainty of facts of consciousness. That which we know most
indubitably are the facts of inner experience. Descartes began
his philosophic reasonings with the fundamental statement, uni
versally valid, Cogito, ergo sum, " I think, therefore I am."
The fact of thought is a primary or first truth. In the realm
of Christian experience the same principle applies. There is of
course the biblical revelation which is vital and fundamental, as
we shall soon show. Meantime it is important to recognize that
Christian certainty has a fact basis in life itself.

We spoke of the insufficiency of mere ideals as the measure
of the Christian certainty. We now remark that it is the presence
of a power in the Christian, enabling him to realize gradually
and progressively the meaning of those ideals. " All things arc
possible to him that believeth " (Mark 9 : 23). It is then a new
causal agency at work in the Christian which imparts the cer
tainty. He is conscious of a new meaning in the old ideals. They
have been created anew in Christ. But he is also conscious of
power to realize them as he never could have done before. The
form of the causal power working in the Christian is clearly dis-

[73]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

tinguished by him from physical causation. The cause he knows
in experience is personal and spiritual. It involves a great and
universal principle of life as we know it on the human plane, the
principle of free causation.

3. The question of degrees of certainty may arise at this point.
We know the immanent objects of our religious life. But do
we know the transcendent objects? We are conscious of in
ward peace, forgiveness, and moral renewal. But are we cer
tain in an equal degree that Jesus Christ as the Revealer of God
and the Holy Spirit as the Regenerator are the objective causes at
work in us? The full answer to this question we defer to a
later section of the discussion. This much may be said now :
The Christian knows beyond a peradventure that the change in
him was in terms of Christ and the Holy Spirit. He called to
Christ, and Christ answered, and the Holy Spirit renewed him
in the image of Christ. His spiritual nature in all its parts now
answers to the moral likeness of Christ, not perfectly of course,
but in principle. If then the Christian knows that a new power
from without has entered his spiritual life, creating him anew
and readjusting his relations to God; and if that readjustment
was consciously a readjustment through Jesus Christ and the
inworking Spirit of God; and if the result is the restoration in
him of the image of God and the fulfilment in the Christian of
the inmost and deepest demands of his nature, there cannot be for
him a question of the causal agency of Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Having attained to self-realization in the deepest impulses and
ideals of his nature through a deliberate and free act of choice
and trust, he can no more doubt the efficient causes which have
recreated him in his moral and spiritual nature, than he can doubt
his own personality. In short, his certainty is part and parcel
of the organic unity of a system of spiritual causes and effects
which are indissolubly bound together. The effects and the
causes are so bound together that neither can be understood
without the other. In accordance with the fundamental principles
of all knowledge, the Christian simply recognizes the link of con
nection between the causes and the effects. This is not to assert

[74]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

that the connection is equally clear to all regenerate men. Experi
ence can only become clear and articulate by means of conscious
thought and definition. But when thought becomes active with
the evangelical Christian experience, it inevitably leads to the
result we have indicated.

XI. OBJECTIONS TO THE CHRISTIAN CERTAINTY

We note next a few objections to the Christian knowledge and
certainty arising therefrom.

i. First, it is objected that it is not a form of certainty which
compels assent. In reply we say that compulsion is out of con
sideration in the religious and moral sphere. The idea of an
assent-compelling certainty implies a wholly indifferent or hos
tile attitude of mind on the part of the man whose assent is
sought. Such a mental attitude can never result in religious cer
tainty, since the religious life is a joint activity of God and man.
Free moral activity on man's part, that is to say, a free moral
choice, is of the very essence of religion in the Christian sense.

Again, assent-compelling demonstration is usually of the mathe
matical kind. Christian certainty would lose all its distinctive
and high qualities if it could produce certainty of the mathe
matical order. It is a general law that the higher you rise in the
scale of being, from the mechanical to the biological, and from the
biological to the personal and moral, the less able you are to state
your knowledge in exact mathematical formulae. Such state
ments would destroy the moral and spiritual qualities of being and
level them with the mathematical. Suppose, for example, it were
possible to express what we call freedom as we express the law
of rotation of a planet on its axis as so many miles per second ;
or suppose we could express what we think of as God's action
upon us, as an exact formula like the law of gravitation. At
once the idea of freedom and the idea of God would lose every
element which makes them valuable and attractive to us. Indeed,
the ideas of God and freedom would thus be destroyed. We
do not want mathematical certainty in religion. It would destroy

[75]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

it as religion. It is not deficiency of truth and reality in man's
religious relations to God which forbids their expression in
mathematical terms. It is rather the abounding fulness of truth
and reality in them which forbids such expression.

2. A second objection is that the standard of knowledge and
certainty contained in the Christian experience is narrow. The
objection is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of Chris
tian experience. In reality that experience involves the highest
moral and spiritual conception of God the world has ever known.
That conception includes all the valid lower and partial concep
tions of God. The experience involves also every phase of re
ligious fellowship between man and God. It is distinguished in
fact by its comprehensiveness rather than by its exclusiveness. It
is an error to confine Christian experience to this or that particular
type of emotional experience. Psychologists of religion, as we
have seen, analyze the conversion experience and the life which
follows into various types. In some the emotional elements pre
vail ; in others, the ethical or practical ; in yet others, the intel
lectual. In some instances there is an overwhelming sense of
sin and guilt. In others there is the quiet act of obedience which
inaugurates the new life in Christ. In some there is the joyous
realization of God's fatherhood which dominates the experience.
Sometimes the religious change is cataclysmic and sudden. At
other times it is quiet, the result of gradual processes of educa
tion in the truths of the gospel. No variation of the experience
due to individual temperament, to previous training, to environ
ment and social influences, is excluded. All the varying types of
experience thus find their place in the comprehensive Christian
experience. The essential facts are: a. The revelation of God
in Christ; b. the abnormal and sinful state of the natural man
in his relations to God ; c. the action of the Holy Spirit in
regenerating the heart and creating normal relations between man
and God. There is no possible form of genuine religious experi
ence which may not be included in the true Christian experience.
This will appear more clearly when we speak of the relation
of Christian experience to the psychology of religion.

[76]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

3. Another objection is that the criterion or standard of truth
we urge is subjective. The reply here also is that the objector
has not grasped the full truth of the matter. The norm or
standard of truth involved in Christian experience is by no means
merely subjective. It is first of all grounded in the revelation of
God in Christ. The Bible brings us the knowledge of that revela
tion. The Christian truth then is first objective and historical.
Then it is subjective and experiential. We recognize and assert
strongly that a merely subjective faith is unstable, uncertain, and
unsatisfactory. The history of human thought about religion
proves this.

Now the strength of the Christian position is that it provides
for both the objective and subjective elements of religion. Some
modern men object vigorously to external authorities of all kinds.
They are exceedingly narrow and provincial in their outlook in
taking up this position. But on another side of their view they
are correct. They insist that truth must be assimilated by us, if
it is to be effective for us. The criticism of the Christian posi
tion has run at one time thus : Your historical biblical revelation
is not to be considered because you seek to impose it as an ex
ternal authority. At another time the criticism has run thus:
Your evangelical experience is not to be taken seriously because
it is merely subjective.

To this we reply, first, that these objections contradict each
other. One objector insists that objective standards and author
ities do not suffice. The truth must be inwardly assimilated. The
soul must say Amen to it. To this the Christian agrees. The other
objector insists upon objective reality, something outside of ex
perience to which it must conform. To this also the Christian
agrees. But the Christian here has a great advantage. The ob
jectors do not agree with each other. Their theories of truth
clash. The Christian combines the two principles. He recog
nizes the relative truth in each of them. But he also insists that
either of them by itself is a half-truth. It is in the combination
of the two that the two hemispheres become the rounded sphere
of truth. In experience we know truth is inward and vital. We

F771

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

assimilate it. But in Christ and the New Testament we know it
as objective. Truth is a great world outside the soul. The
soul enters it and finds the meaning of that world. In this respect
the Christian religion is like physical science. We know because
we enter in and discover and report our discoveries. These dis
coveries are open to all who will enter.

We shall soon discuss the objective revelation in Christ. It
is the causal agency at work in the world which has produced the
social and religious revolution which we describe as Christian.
Meantime the purpose is to show that the Christian experience as
subjective imparts a reality and a power to the Christian religion
in the convictions of men which nothing can destroy. The experi
ence of salvation through Christ is indeed just that inner assimila
tion of the truth which is so insisted upon by objectors to authority.
It is the truth becoming real and vital for the individual, not
merely truth imposed upon or prescribed to him, and yet it is
first of all objective truth in the divine revelation in Christ and
recorded in the New Testament.

The criticism of Christian experience as subjective takes an
other form which needs to be briefly noticed. Some apparent con
versions turn out to be no conversions at all. Hence a theory is
framed to the effect that all so-called conversions are due to
emotional excitement and superficial psychic experiences. The
reply is that the New Testament long ago discriminated between
these counterfeit conversions and the genuine. In the parable of
the Sower and in various passages in the Gospels and Epistles
we have clear recognition of this type of so-called conversion
by way of contrast with the genuine. (See Matt. 13 : 9-23; John
6 : 66; 2 Peter 2 : 22.) The marks of the regenerate life are
wanting in them. The moral transformation, the stability and
progress, required by and found in the genuine conversions, are
not present in the lives of those who have known simply an
emotional change.

4. 'A fourth objection is that the knowledge of God derived
from Christian experience rests on an anthropomorphic basis.
It is the same objection, applied in a different way, which has

[78]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

long been urged against the arguments for God's existence. The
chief point in it is that man conceives of God as a magnified
image of himself. Man has will, intelligence, purpose, per
sonality. He projects these into the universe about him, and
imagines he has found God.

The reply may begin by assuming for the moment that the
ultimate reality is a power merely which we know as a re
generating power in experience. But as soon as we analyze the
contents of the experience we find that every element in it
requires personality in the object. The experience itself knows
no impersonal object. If that reality speaks to us at all, it must
speak in personal terms and relations. The Christian then
interprets the ultimate reality as personal because he knows it
only as personal. He does not therefore merely project his own
personality into the universe about him. He explores the uni
verse rather, and finds personality. The outcome thus agrees
with the assumption of all knowledge, ris., that the world with
out is congruous with the world within, that the universe is con
gruous with human reason.

Religion and physical science proceed upon exactly the same
principle here. The scientist finds within himself a craving
for truth, and seeks the truth in nature. The laws of nature are
discovered and formulated. These are the guaranty to him that
nature is rational as he is rational. In the work of an orchestra,
the hearers must be in tune with the players else the instruments
make mere noises rather than grand harmonies. Intelligence
speaks to intelligence. So science finds reason in every part of
nature in response to the craving for truth.

Now religion carries out this principle more fully. Man finds
in himself a craving for will since he needs a power greater than
himself ; he finds in himself a craving for love and righteousness
beyond any that he possesses. He also craves to know ultimate
truth. Then by enlisting his will, his intellect, his emotions,
Ins moral nature, he finds all of these in response to his craving.
The personal God comes to him and speaks to him, and a life
of fellowship with God follows.

[79]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

It is clear from the preceding that the religious knowledge of
God is not one whit more anthropomorphic than the scientific
knowledge of nature. In each realm there is a congruity be
tween man's nature and the realities around him in the physical
and spiritual universe. Science in its craving for truth evokes
a response of nature. Art in its craving for beauty evokes a
like response. The moral faculty in us, in its craving for the
good, calls forth a response in terms of good. Religion, in its
craving for God and redemption, evokes its appropriate response.
God answers. In the religious experience of the Christian all
the powers of the soul come into action, and man finds the uni
verse answering to him in all his cravings. These are summed
up in the supreme revelation of God in Christ.

5. A fifth objection is that it is unfair for Christians to impose
upon non-Christians a form of proof which is personal and sub
jective instead of one that is universal and demonstrative. The
Christian reply is that the proof is open to any and all who will
submit to the conditions ; that humility and faith and obedience
are organs of knowledge as truly as the discursive reason; that
the evidence is such that it can easily become universal since it
is within the reach of the humblest intellect as well as the
highest; that it is thoroughly convincing to all who are willing
to widen the spiritual foundations of knowledge and thus escape
from the provincialism of adherence to the rational principle
alone.

The Christian replies further that religious certainty is in
the nature of the case religiously conditioned. The principle is
familiar in many departments of life that certain forms of con
fidence, certain elements of knowledge, can only be acquired
in particular ways. Indeed, this is true in every sphere where
knowledge is highly developed. The sailor's confidence of eye
and hand are only acquired by the life at sea; the Indian can
track a foe by signs invisible to others; the art critic must be
trained to artistic insight if he is ever to acquire certainty and
authority. The expert scientist alone can conduct successful
scientific demonstrations. Mathematical certainty is limited to

[80]

Preliminary Study of Christian Experience

the mathematically skilful. So religious certainty comes only in
the religious way. As scientific, and mathematical, and artistic
certainty is conditioned by the peculiar requirements of the
sphere in which it exists, so religious certainty is religiously
conditioned. The charge of unfairness therefore breaks down.

81]

CHAPTER IV
CHRISTIAN AND OTHER FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE

T has been shown that our knowledge of God in Christian
experience is conditioned in a religious way. This is neces-
sarily true since religious knowledge in the strict sense
arises only out of the religious life. There are, however, certain
questions which require attention at this point, growing out
of the conclusions already reached. One is: How is the knowl
edge derived from Christian experience related to other forms of
knowledge? Is there conflict or harmony between them? Can
the truths which arise out of Christian experience be unified or
correlated with other forms of human knowledge? These ques
tions must now receive attention. It will appear that the knowl
edge derived from Christian experience is not only not opposed
to other forms of human knowledge, but is capable of being
interpreted in close and vital correlation with them.

There are several general statements to be made first. They
are mainly a summing up of what has been said already in
various connections on the preceding pages, as follows : The
same general principles of knowledge apply in the sphere of
Christian experience as in other spheres of knowledge. Among
these are the following: There is a harmony between our know
ing powers and the world about us. The truth as to the world
about us arises as a result of our reactions upon it rather than as
the result of abstract thought. General world-views or theories
of reality should be constructed out of the data of experience.
There is no essential difference in the application of logic in the
religious sphere from its application elsewhere. Thus it follows
that whatever differences there are in dealing with the data of
religious experience, they arise not from a difference in the
principles of knowledge, but from the distinctiveness of the data
of religion. The Christian life is a distinct sphere of human

[82]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

experience. Religion is a form of human activity calling for
treatment in accordance with its own nature.

It may be objected that the claim of a divine revelation forbids
our applying the above general principles of all knowledge to
the Christian religion. The objection, however, is not well
grounded. It is true that God speaks to us in the Christian
revelation, just as nature speaks to us in physical science.
The source of our knowledge is objective to us in both spheres.
But in both alike our own self-activity is a part of the knowing
process. We apprehend, and by slow stages comprehend what
is revealed. Revelations become our discoveries. The general
principles of knowledge therefore apply in both spheres.

There are several departments of knowledge to be considered
more specifically.

I. PHYSICAL SCIENCE

The word science is not very clearly fixed in meaning in
modern thought. As a consequence many misunderstandings
arise. Physical science deals with the facts of physical nature;
the social and moral sciences, with the data of human society in
its varied forms ; religious science, with the facts of the religious
life. In all sciences the aim is to discover and formulate, in
a manner as exact as the field of investigation admits, the laws
which express the meaning of the forces which operate therein,
a. There are certain points of agreement between the methods
of physical science and theological science. In both, facts and
only facts are taken into account. In both the realities observed
are only partially known. In both systematic explanation is
sought.

b. There are also points of contrast. The realities known are
not the same. In physical science it is the world of matter;
in religion, the world of spirit. The modes of knowing are
not the same. In physical science sensation supplies the data;
in religion, inward experiences of fellowship with God. The
relation of cause and effect is not the same in the two spheres.
In physical science continuity, or the transformation of energy, is

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the form in which the causal relation is set forth. In Christian
experience the causal relation is expressed in terms of the
interaction of persons. Not physical, but free causation is the
form of statement which must be employed in religion. The
formulations of the results are not the same. In physical science
mathematical laws express the meaning. In the social sciences,
and in the sciences connected with religion, general principles,
or teachings, or doctrines expressive of personal relations, are
alone adequate.

c. The supreme excellence of exact science which states in
mathematical formulae the laws of matter, force, and motion,
becomes its chief defect in dealing with the data of the higher
spheres. In the realm of the organic and living mathematical
statements of law are impossible as in mechanical nature. In
the realm of personality, of freedom, and of the spirit the
ordinary methods of physical science cannot be employed. It
follows from the method of physical science and from the data
with which it deals that it is bound to leave the facts of the
spiritual world to moral and religious science. The questions
as to God, the soul, and immortality do not enter directly into
the problems of physical science at all. Its methods do not apply.
It can neither prove nor disprove in this sphere. Other standards
of judgment and criteria of truth must be employed. It is of
fundamental importance that this distinctiveness of sphere and
method be recognized. Only thus can we avoid a great variety
of false or misleading issues or alleged " contradictions " between
science and religion.

The Alleged Disinterestedness of Science

Sometimes science is contrasted with religion by the assertion
that it is interested in truth as truth, while religion is always
absorbed in a personal interest and need. It is then concluded
that science yields results which are more reliable than religion.
It is supposed that if interest and need are absent, truth is
more easily discovered. Prof. Theodore Haering, in his treatise

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

on " The Christian Faith," x speaking of science and religion in
their search for truth, says that both have " in common an
intense interest in truth in the simple sense of the word. But,"
he continues, " how they differ in their anxiety for the truth !
The purer science is, the nearer it attains to its ideal, the more
entirely does it separate what it seeks to know from the value
that this has for the knowing subject. It sinks itself so com
pletely in the object that it forgets the subject. This is not
to say that the human mind is capable of doing anything value
less for itself; but the value of knowledge depends upon its
comprehending the object to be known as completely, as exactly,
and as little influenced by any outside consideration as is at all
possible. The religious man, on the other hand, seeks to know
the truth of God, because his own life depends thereon; he has
the greatest conceivable personal interest in the truth of the world
of his faith. He has as little intention of deceiving himself as the
scientific investigator — in this respect truth has precisely the
same significance for both — but he is anxious not to deceive him
self regarding the object because of the importance of the object
for the subject, while the man of science is anxious for the sake
of the object, is concerned about its nature, apart altogether from
its importance for the subject."

Now as a broad general statement the above may be justified
as defining the difference between science and religion. But
Professor Haering declares here, and shows in many ways, that
the religious man is as much interested in finding the truth as
the scientific worker.

He overstates the contrast at certain points, and seems to as
sume a motive in the scientific man more likely to lead to the
truth. His statement needs modifying somewhat. The follow
ing statements may be added :

i. It is not correct to assume that the absence of " interest "
is the best condition for finding the truth. Recent discussions
of theories of knowledge show that interest is a necessary con
dition for its discovery. Our struggle for life in all its forms,

1Vol. I, p. 61.

[ 85 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

our reactions upon the world in the pursuit of our vital needs,
are our chief sources of knowledge. The man of science is not
detached from " interest/' in a realm of " pure thought." There
is no such thing as pure thought, that is, thought detached from
feeling and desire. The true scientist is passionately and en
thusiastically devoted to the ideal of truth because for him such
devotion is the chief value of the life of research. As his passion
and enthusiasm wane, he is likely to be a decreasing value for
scientific progress. He has a very great personal interest in his
life pursuit.

2. Again, the apparent interest of the scientific man in objec
tive truth for its own sake is due to the nature of the material
of his investigations. Physical nature is objective to man.
His reactions upon it are through the senses. In religion man
knows an inward reality, a spiritual presence; this may seem
less real, and conclusions about it less reliable than those about
matter, force, and motion. It is also true that the religious need
and interest is the deepest of all human interests. It enlists the
human soul as nothing else enlists it.

3. We may not say then that the scientific man and the re
ligious man differ in that the former cares supremely for truth
for its own sake, while the latter is thinking chiefly about him
self and is willing to be deceived. The student of nature and
the student of religion, if we take both in their highest forms,
are fundamentally alike in their passionate devotion to reality
and truth. Both alike hate falsehoods and make-believes. Both
desire to know all the truth which is discoverable. For both the
prime condition of discovery is whole-hearted devotion to the
objects of study.

II. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION

The study of the Christian consciousness in regeneration and
conversion is related in important ways to general psychology
and the psychology of religion. These may now be considered.

i. Psychology vindicates the spiritual view of man. The

[86]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

parallelism between brain states and mind states is a common
place truth in all recent psychology. But no evidence has been
produced which indicates that mental activity is an instance of
the physical conservation of energy. Brain states are not con
vertible into mind states, nor mind states into brain states.
Any general theory of the universe must reckon with this fact.
If materialism could demonstrate that mind is a product of
matter, of course our whole view would be radically changed.
But no such demonstration has been found. The Christian view
maintains the spiritual nature of God and man. Nothing in
physics or psychology has been discovered to modify this view in
any essential particular.

2. The psychology of religion emphasizes the varieties of re
ligious experience. The normal religious experience is that in
which all the spiritual elements of our nature combine in due pro
portion. The intellect, the emotions, the moral nature, and the
will enter into all genuine Christian experience. But in some
the intellect predominates, in others the feelings, and in others the
will. Thus innumerable varieties and types of conversion arise.
This should prepare us for making due allowance for variations
of experience, and at the same time safeguard us against drawing
hasty general conclusions from a narrow range of facts.

There are many abnormal types of religious experience which
cannot be considered in detail. They are properly classed under
the head of " the pathology of religion." In some cases they
are genuine examples of religious experience, marked by certain
excesses of extreme tendencies. In others they are due to other
than religious causes. Extreme forms of mysticism, of ecstasy,
and of vision in which the will and the reason are reduced to
the vanishing-point, are instances of the former. These are due
to the predominance of feelings over the other elements of the
religious nature.

At the other extreme is an overdone intellectual type of
religion. In this religion is reduced to the idea of a " value "
which man seeks. In its extreme form it denies the objective
reality of a personal God corresponding to the " value." In the

[87]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

course of human history as man advances this " value " will
be " transvaluated " into some other than a religious value, and
religion will disappear. This implies the strangulation or gradual
starvation of the religious nature of man. Hence we class this
conception with the pathological types of religion. It is entirely
abnormal and at variance with all that the science of comparative
religion and the psychology of religion teach as to normal religious
life.

3. The psychology of religion shows the prevalence of law in
the subjective religious life of man. A very few illustrations of
this point may be given here. Religion has been connected vitally
with what is known in psychology as the subconscious mind. It is
declared that the divine influences reach us through the subcon
scious in our nature. This is undoubtedly true in some sense
because religion affects our whole nature. But we have very
little knowledge of the modes of the divine action upon us. What
we do know includes at least two points : First, that a power
outside and apart from ourselves produces the results in us, and
secondly, that when the divine power becomes effective for our
moral transformation, it acts in our consciousness. Our own
choices or acts of will are an essential factor in the regenerate
life.

Another instance of the reign of law in religious experience
is the connection between religious interest and adolescence in
boys and girls. A physical, coupled with an intellectual, change
takes place during the period from eleven to fifteen years in
girls, and from twelve to seventeen in boys. It is a period fraught
with great possibilities of good or evil. A great number of con
versions occur during this period. We have already had occa
sion to speak of adolescence and its significance for the religious
life. A truth already expressed may be repeated for emphasis.
It is an error to hold that the change is in itself religious. A
widening horizon of life, the releasing of latent powers, the rise
to a new level of natural experience, are accompanied by a new
capacity for moral and religious truth. The wise teacher and
pastor will avail themselves of the opportunity this affords, But

[88]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

they will not mistake a physical and mental change for divine
renewal. There are also clearly defined differences between
juvenile and adult types of conversion. These involve differ
ences in the point of contact and the form of appeal, which will
be adapted to the various stages.

4. The psychology of religion suggests the working of a divine
energy in conversion. Sometimes the fact of the presence of
law and order in religious experience has led men to infer purely
natural causes for all the effects produced. But, on the contrary,
the presence of orderly and uniform modes of activity is sug
gestive quite as strongly of a divine agency. God is a God of
order, not of confusion.

There are three possible attitudes which the student of re
ligious psychology may take with reference to the presence of a
divine factor in religious experience, a. First, he may confine
his view simply to the " stream of consciousness," without in
quiring into causes. If his interest is purely psychological this
will usually be his line of approach. He will neither affirm nor
deny the divine action in conversion. b. Secondly, he may
be constrained, even as a psychologist, to recognize a super
human power in man's religious life without attempting to define
it further. An increasing number of the pro founder students
of the subject have reached this conclusion. Prof. William
James, at the conclusion of his notable work, " The Varieties of
Religious Experience," admits a miraculous element in conver
sion. He denies, however, that we are able to define more
accurately the nature of the divine power. He calls any con
clusion on this point an " overbelief."

c. In the third place, the student of the psychology of re
ligion may frankly and boldly investigate the cause or energy
which produces the regenerate life. The Christian psychologist
is acquainted with the system of Christian influences and forces.
He knows the nature of Christianity as a historic religion. He
knows the claims of Jesus Christ. He knows how the moral and
spiritual change was produced in himself. To him the Holy
Spirit is a definite reality. It is impossible, therefore, even if it

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

were desirable, for him to detach himself from these factors in
his knowledge. He is bound to consider causes and effects
together.

For the Christian psychologist the presence of the divine Agent
in regeneration is indubitable because the change itself could
have been effected in no other way. He has become a new
creature. He was once a self-centered individual; he is now a
God-centered person. He has not only been given power to
achieve what he previously sought ; he now seeks totally new and
higher objects. He has not only found, but has also been found
by, the great Reality of the soul's life. He knows the antecedents
of his own consciousness, the elements of his own nature, and
he knows that these were devoid of regenerating power. More
over, he knows the biblical explanation of his new life. It is
God in Christ acting upon his spirit through the immanent Spirit
of God.

All the above accords with the general principles of knowledge.
We know objects because our mental constitution belongs to a
coherent system of things. Nature is found to be rational in
response to the cravings of rational mind. Science is grounded
in this correspondence or unity between man and nature. So
also the Christian psychologist finds a religious object in response
to the cravings of a religious nature. It follows that a denial
of the religious object would be fatal in two respects. First, it
would undermine all knowledge. This is true because the prin
ciples on which we assert the possibility of any knowledge on
any subject are practically identical with those of religious knowl
edge. Secondly, it would undermine all religion. It is vain to
talk of religion as merely a subjective play of the imagination, or
a useful function merely in the struggle for life. Religion must
be seen to rest on solid foundations of fact or else men will
have none of it. The love of reality and of truth is too deeply
imbedded in our nature to permit us to rest content with any
explanation of religion which makes it merely a " psychological "
or " functional " activity without a God to whom we may really
pray, and with whom we may really have fellowship,

[90]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

III. THE RELATION OF CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE TO ETHICS

Christian experience in its beginning, continuance, and end
is ethical to the core. Ethics defines the relations of men and
their obligations to each other in a social order. Christianity
proclaims its goal as the highest of all social orders, the kingdom
of God. A divine society wherein God and men are associated
in loving fellowship; where the will of God is done by men;
where love is the expression of their relations with, and conduct
toward, each other; and where God graciously manifests him
self in the fulness of his grace to men : this is the New Testament
teaching as to the kingdom of God. The ethical ideal attains
thus its highest expression.

Now the experience of the Christian in regeneration and con
version, and in the spiritual life which follows, bears a vital rela
tion to ethics at the following points:

1. It incorporates the ethical ideal in the religious experience
at the outset. The initial act of the sinner in becoming a Chris
tian is repentance. It is of course repentance toward God. But
it is with reference to all wrong conduct toward men. Every
form of sin toward our fellow men is rebuked in the gospel call
to repentance. Nothing is more impressive in the New Testament
than the merciless exposure and condemnation of unethical con
duct. Yet this is coupled with God's gracious invitation and
offer of pardon. Christianity is a religion in which a read
justment of relations with God involves of necessity a readjust
ment of relations with men. The Christian redemption is an
ethical redemption.

2. Christian experience solves the problem with which -theo
retical ethics has long struggled. What is the ultimate ground
of ethics? Some form of utilitarianism has usually been the an
swer apart from Christian teaching. The natural reason, seeking
to explain the moral ideal, has often asserted that it arose as the
result of experience in social relations. Men found that they
prospered better when acting under moral sanctions than when
not doing so. The modern evolutionary doctrine of development

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

and survival in the struggle for life has aided in producing the
view. Ethics thus came to be regarded simply as a useful pro
vision for aiding man in attaining his objects.

There is of course no need to deny the relative truth or half-
truth contained in this view. But it is seen with increasing
clearness that some form of belief in God is the necessary
ground for any stable form of ethical theory. It is here that
Christian experience renders a great service to ethical theory
by converting it into reality. The moral ideal is found in Chris
tian experience not only to be an essential part of the experi
ence ; but it is also made possible of realization through the direct
action of God upon the heart. Thus the moral ideal is bound up
indissolubly with religion.

3. Christian experience leads to a new and higher ethical ideal.
The deepening and heightening of moral principles in Christ's
teachings are their most striking features. Nothing so radical
or drastic has ever been expressed elsewhere. The Sermon
on the Mount is the outstanding example of this teaching. It
has often been pronounced visionary and wholly unattainable
by man in his present state. But for the Christian the ethics
of Jesus become practicable. This is because the ethical teach
ings do not stand alone. They are part of a system which in
cludes also regenerating grace. The new " I " of the regenerate
man knows himself as a new moral creation. He knows he has
not attained the Christian moral ideal. But he knows himself as
the subject of the working of a moral energy which has put him
in the way of its gradual attainment. The lofty ethical teachings
of Jesus do not cause the Christian to despair, because he knows
that the demands are accompanied by a power putting him in the
way of realizing them.

4. Christian experience reveals a new and effective method in
religion and ethics. The central idea in Christianity is the cross,
and what it signifies. Self-realization through self-renunciation ;
dying in order that we may live ; being crucified that we may rise
to a new life in Christ; losing the life that we may find it:
these are some of the ways in which that idea is expressed,

[92]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

The modern psychological study of religion has discovered this
as the supreme law of the religious life. It is thus expressed by
one of the most gifted and discerning of modern students of the
psychology of religion, who was not in the technical sense a Chris
tian believer : 2 " The phenomenon is that of new ranges of life
succeeding on our most despairing moments. There are resources
in us that naturalism with its literal and legal virtues never recks
of, possibilities that take our breath away, of another kind of
happiness and power, based on giving up our own will and let
ting something higher work for us, and these seem to show a
world wider than either physics or philistine ethics can imagine.
Here is a world in which all is well, in spite of certain forms
of death, indeed because of certain forms of death — death of
hope, death of struggle, death of responsibility, of fear and
worry, competency and desert, death of everything that paganism,
naturalism, and legalism pin their faith on — and tie their trust to."
Again, the same writer says : 3 " In spite of rationalism's disdain
for the particular, the personal, and the unwholesome, the drift
of all the evidence we have seems to me to sweep us very strongly
toward the belief in some form of superhuman life with which
we may, unknown to ourselves, be coconscious."

Thus the modern scientific psychologist expresses the law of
the spiritual life so amply and clearly taught by Jesus and Paul.
We find ourselves ; we cease to be isolated individuals, self-
centered, and self -sufficient, and become religious and social
persons, vitally united with God and man in a new spiritual life.
The ethical consciousness becomes the other side of the religious
consciousness, and self-realization becomes simply the task of find
ing our place and work in the eternal kingdom of God. We thus
find that the unregenerate ethical life with its struggles and failures
comes to realization and fulfilment in the regenerate life in Christ.
It comes to pass, then, that the former unregenerate moral con
sciousness becomes an important factor in our Christian certainty.
This is because of the contrast between the old and the new

2 William James: "A Pluralistic Universe," pp. 305, 306.
3 Ibid., p. 309.

[93]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

moral consciousness. It is also because the new regenerate
consciousness of power to overcome sin and gradually attain the
moral ideal is the fulfilment of the old struggle on the natural level.

IV. CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE AND COMPARATIVE RELIGION

In recent times a great deal of study has been bestowed upon
the subject of comparative religion. A great mass of data
has been accumulated. Sometimes it seems like attempting to
find one's way through a pathless jungle, when an effort is made
to interpret the data. And yet real progress has been made. The
science of comparative religion sheds a real light upon the value
of Christianity. The treatment of the subject here can only
include certain general conclusions which relate to the topic
before us.

Among the results of the scientific study of religion are the
following: a. Religion is a universal phenomenon of human
life. Paul was impressed that the Athenians were very religious.
Modern students are impressed with the universal religious ten
dency of men. Alleged exceptions to the rule usually turn out
to be no exceptions at all. b. The many forms of religious
belief and practice found among the peoples of the earth represent
different stages of advancement in religion, c. None of the
many forms of religion, apart from Christianity, presents us with
the ideal or perfect religion. They may be regarded as stages in
man's progress toward the perfect religion. Indeed in a real
sense they prepare the way for and foretoken the coming of the
perfect religion, d. They are, therefore, not to be regarded
as wholly false, but rather as unfinished and inadequate. They
represent man's quest for God while blinded by ignorance and
sin. They served a highly important place in man's religious life
preparatory to the coming of the perfect religion, somewhat as
Judaism prepared the way for Christ. They faij, however, to
provide the spiritual and moral redemption which is the chief
boon of the Christian religion to needy men. e. In the fifth
place, Christianity brings to man the realities which answer to

[94]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

the longings and values discovered in the study of comparative
religion. The Christian religion brings more than this. It creates
new longings, and suggests new values, and along with them
supplies the realities needed for their salvation. At present,
however, the point of emphasis is that Christianity is the fulfil
ment and realization of all the permanent values of other religions.

It is not necessary to the argument here to discuss the much
disputed point as to the origin of religious belief. The Old
Testament represents the primitive religion as monotheistic.
Dorner thinks that later forms of lower religion are perversions
of this original form, while those who insist on the evolutionary
hypothesis claim that the lowest was also the earliest. There
are many traces of higher forms of religion as we go back toward
the earlier history of some of the leading nations. The object in
view at present is to point out the tentative and imperfect char
acter of all other forms of religion, and along with this to show
that Christianity gathers up into a higher unity all the valid re
ligious elements contained in them.

We can best accomplish this object by showing how religions
take their character from the object of worship. Variations in
the conception of God are attended by variations in the concep
tion of man's nature and the nature of worship. Or to state
the same truth in another form, we may say that the perfecting of
the idea of God is accompanied by a perfecting of the idea of
religion. Now looking at the religions of the world as a whole,
we may represent the progress of religious ideas under the fol
lowing general plan :

i. The gods of the various religions tend more and more to
become personal. Some scholars question whether or not in
certain of the lower animistic forms of religion, the god, or
fetish, or object of worship, is regarded by the worshiper as a
person. It may simply be looked upon as vital, or living, and as
having power without possessing personality. It is beyond all
question, however, that at a very early stage the god begins to
be regarded as a personal being. Some derive this from ancestor-
worship, others from the phenomena of dreams in which it is

[95]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

thought the soul leaves the body, others from the tendency among
men to attribute their own human qualities to objects around
them possessing power. In the Western races there appear
elaborate polytheistic systems of gods, like those of the Greeks
described by Homer and Hesiod. These are in the main simply
magnified men, with the infirmities and limitations of other
men. Polytheism is grounded in a pantheistic conception of the
world. This is an element of great weakness because men are
thus prevented from rising to the idea of a God who is trans
cendent over the world. The polytheistic gods always remain
dependent. They never attain to the dignity of the absolute God.

In India there was early a reaction against polytheism.
Thoughtful men renounced the many gods and conceived the uni
verse as a vast system of appearances. Instead of many gods,
or one God, they assumed a universal substance of which man
and nature are passing manifestations. These are destined to
be reabsorbed into the universal substance as waves subside and
coalesce again with the sea.

In both India and Greece, however, there came reactions against
these general views : in Greece, from polytheism to an abstract
philosophy and an impersonal universe; in India, from the ab
stract philosophy back to polytheism. As Dorner says, heathen
thought moved in a circle, unable to emancipate itself.

The chief difficulty in these great religious systems was that
of properly conceiving God's relations to the world. In the one
case he is thought of as a personal being or beings, but always
under limitations which are unworthy of the divine. In the other
he ceases to be personal and becomes a universal substance,
which really reduces him to the level of the physical.

In Judaism a new thought of God arises. God is conceived of
as both personal and absolute. He is not confused or confounded
with the world, nor is he subordinate to it. He is creator and
sustainer of all things. Israel thus escaped the peril of pantheism
in both its forms. It escaped polytheism by making Jehovah the
only God; and it escaped the abstract pantheism of Hindu
thought by making the world dependent on the personal God.

[96]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

The Old Testament exhibits growth and development in Israel's
conception. The revelation in the earlier stages of the history
emphasizes the attributes of power; in the later, the attributes
of character. In the earlier stages Jehovah's relations to Israel
are dwelt upon; in the later prophets his dominion over the uni
verse is clearly set forth.

2. The gods of the various religions exhibit a tendency to
become increasingly ethical. In the lowest religions it is difficult
often to find any connection between religion and ethics. But in
some of the higher ethnic faiths the connection becomes very
clear. In Judaism it is most pronounced. The religion of Israel
is ethical monotheism. The supreme moral sanction is the fear
or the love of Jehovah. Now this ethical ideal for the people
arises out of the ethical quality in Jehovah ; " Ye shall be holy,
for I am holy."

In this way man himself acquires, in Judaism, a new dignity.
So long as God was thought of as power merely, his omnipotence
dwarfed man. But when God is thought of as moral character
it is seen that man may imitate him. It is then seen that God
and man belong to the same class of beings. Man is made in
God's image. In the New Testament the crown is placed upon
the revelation of God's moral attributes, as we shall see. But
in the Old Testament God is revealed as righteous love.

3. A third tendency in the phenomena presented by comparative
religion is the gradual advance in the idea of revelation. Some
form of revelation appears in nearly all religions. The gods
speak to men in dreams, or through oracles of various kinds.
There are earlier and later stages of revelation in the Old Testa
ment. Here, however, the prophet is the chief medium of God's
self-revelation to men. The prophets spoke through the Spirit of
God in them. Sometimes they declare themselves to be constrained
to speak by the indwelling Spirit, against their own wills. (Jer.
20 : 9.) The prophetic message is varied from age to age. Yet
there are permanent elements that are never absent. Among these
are the following : God is one ; he is jealous of the loyalty and love
of his people ; he is holy ; he has a plan for mankind ; he will

[97]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

in the future work mightily for the redemption of men. His
revelation is a historical process. It is seen in the life of the people
as well as the words of the prophets. It is gradual revelation of
his plan and purpose for mankind, exhibited in the first instance
in the life of Israel.

4. A fourth point is the increasing recognition of the pur-
posiveness of God and his providential control of the world. In
the lower faiths there are household gods, tribal and national
gods. In Judaism God discloses himself not only as the one God
of all nations, but as the one God of all time. There are three
elements of Old Testament teaching especially which make this
clear: a. There is the element of typology. Certain persons
or institutions are typical of future events or persons in the
plan of God. History is thought of as if it were a vital organism.
As all parts of the future tree are in the planted seed, so the
future kingdom of God is bound up in every stage of the ongoing
kingdom. The type thus becomes the imperfect expression of the
meaning of the antitype. The latter of course we find in the New
Testament revelation, b. There is also the Messianic element,
which is very pronounced in the Old Testament at certain stages
of the history. The king and the kingdom, the prophet and other
forms of representation are employed to express the idea of a
coming" Messiah or deliverer, c. There is the idea of a future
judgment. Eschatology is very imperfectly developed in the Old
Testament, but it is present in a number of forms. It reaches
its climax, of course, in the New Testament. Men sometimes
speak as if religion ought to dispense with eschatology. The
hope of reward and the fear of punishment are regarded by some
as low motives. But eschatology is a necessary element in the
completion of the idea of God. God as the absolute, who controls
the future, was a necessary stage in the perfecting of the idea of
the divine being. Religious psychology also confirms the value
of eschatology in religion. We are so made that we cannot escape
the influence of fear and hope. Our belief in immortality and
our moral dignity as persons impel us irresistibly to considerations
of the ultimate consequences of present conduct.

[98]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

5. Again, there is a gradual advance in the idea of redemption.
Deliverance from enemies, from disease and pestilence, and from
the powers of nature, are a few of the forms of redemption
found in the less developed religions of the world. Everywhere
the idea is that the god or gods act in behalf of men. They are
believed to be real helpers in our human struggles. There is
a gradual transition to the ideal of redemption from sin. In the
Old Testament the ethical ideal is accompanied all along the
course of its development with a deepening and intensifying of
the sense of sin and guilt. Other forms of deliverance gradually
become subordinate to redemption in this higher sense, moral and
spiritual deliverance. The Old Testament revelation in its later
stages distinctly recognizes the supreme place of moral and
spiritual redemption in God's plan. This is seen in the new inter
pretation of God's purpose through Israel after the national
life is destroyed. (Isa. 42 : 1-9; 60 : 1-14.) It is seen also in the
later predictions of the new covenant which should be imvard and
moral in its provisions. (Jer. 31 : 31; Heb. 8 : 8.) It is clearly
seen in the later longing for and expectation of the gift of the
Holy Spirit with new creative power for regenerating man and
establishing a new order. (Joel 2 : 28; Acts 2 : 17.) The same
ideal of moral and spiritual redemption appears very clearly in
the later Messianic predictions, wherein the work of the Messiah
is described in terms of the highest moral and spiritual purifica
tion. (Isa. 61 : i; 42 : 1-9; Matt. 12 : 18.)

6. The ideas of atonement and reconciliation gradually assume
higher forms and reach their climax in the Christian teaching.
There is much obscurity as to the meaning of many sacrificial
offerings found in the religions of mankind. Even in the Old
Testament the meaning is not always entirely clear. There is,
however, in the later sacrifices clear recognition of the principle
of substitution. Respect for the divine righteousness must be con
cerned in all reconciliations between God and man. This also
finds its adequate explanation and expression in Christianity.

7. The immanence and transcendence of God attain their per
fect expression in the Christian religion. Heathen faiths tended

[99]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

constantly to pantheism. Everything seemed to be equally divine.
Judaism escaped this danger through its ethical monotheism,
which holds that God is the moral and spiritual absolute Person,
on whom all things depend, and from whom all things proceed.
The doctrine of creation was a natural reflection of this view
of God. God is not identical with the world. He made it, and
it is dependent on him. The doctrine of creation was a necessary
element in the completion of the idea of God. We can only
conceive of God as the perfect moral and spiritual Person by
thinking of him as the Creator of the universe. Otherwise he be
comes entangled in it, and there is great difficulty in avoiding low
estimates of the divine character.

There is, however, a danger in the other direction. God may
be thought of as above the world and apart from it and beyond
the reach of man. The Old Testament in a remarkable way over
came this danger by its teaching as to the Spirit of God. The
Spirit of God is God immanent in nature and in man. This
prepared the way for the perfecting of the idea of God, and
therewith the perfecting of the idea of religion.

It is now in order to indicate in a brief summary how Chris
tianity perfects all the preceding elements in religion. It will
thus appear that comparative religion presents us the religious
values or needs to which Christianity brings the corresponding
realities.

a. Jesus Christ is the revealer of God as a person. " He that
hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14 : 9), was one of
his own sayings. " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only
begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him" (John i : 18). Jesus brought to perfection the idea of
God as ethical. He revealed him to us as righteous love. In
his supreme relation to us God is Father, everlasting in his desire
to bless. He is infinite in all his perfections, but condescends to
our low estate in order that he may lift us to his own.

b. Jesus Christ completes the idea of revelation. Inorganic
nature, organic nature, sentient and animal nature, are gradual
stages in God's revelation to man. But in none of these was there

[100]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

an adequate revelation of God. In addition to the revelation in
nature there was the dim revelation of God in the various religions
of the world. In the words of Tennyson, mankind seemed

to hear a Heavenly Friend,
And thro' thick veils to apprehend
A labor working to an end.

But here again revelation came short of the goal. In these faiths
we see man seeking God. When Christ came, God came seeking
man. In these lower revelations there is created an expectation
of the supreme revelation in Christ. The religious relationship
could not be perfected until God spoke to man. The Old Testa
ment is a new stage in the religious life of the world. Now God
founds his kingdom. All the conditions are gradually produced
for the coming of the Messianic Son of God and Redeemer of
man. God speaks in Christ the supreme authoritative word, and
the idea of revelation is completed. It has attained its highest
possible development.

c. The revelation of a divine purpose and providential govern
ment of the world culminates in the great thought of God's uni
versal moral kingdom. This is the key to history and its goal.
The typical, Messianic, and eschatological elements attain their
full expression in the ideal of God's universal kingdom.

d. Again, the redemptive idea culminates in Christ. The blood
of bulls and goats could not take away sin. The redemptive
righteousness of God comes to full expression in the atoning
death of Christ. This is presented in the New Testament, not as
sometimes urged, as if it were merely a device or contrivance of
the divine ingenuity, with a view to letting the guilty go free.
It is the provision of infinite wisdom and love, and while it
meets the ends of divine righteousness, at the same time it is
an energy which operates to produce holy character in men.
It is not a merely legal or judicial transaction. It is a moral
and spiritual reconciliation.

e. Again, in the New Testament doctrine of the Holy Spirit we
have the completion of the idea of God. Through the Spirit God

[101]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

is revealed as immanent in the world. Thus is avoided the
danger of conceiving God as apart from the world. Through
the operation of the Holy Spirit also religion becomes inward,
moral, and personal. Through the Holy Spirit man's spirit is
created anew in Christ Jesus. Through the Spirit religion becomes
fellowship between God and man. Through the Spirit revelation
becomes a personal transaction of God in the soul. Through
the Spirit the sense of sonship to God the Father is imparted to
man. Through the Spirit the truths of the revelation of God in
Christ become for the believer an articulate system of truths
expressing the meaning of the facts of his new life. Through
the Holy Spirit religion becomes power for realizing the moral
and spiritual ideal in the individual life and in the social order.
The Spirit creates the spiritual community or church, and the
church leavens society, and the kingdom of God gradually comes
on earth.

/. Attention is here called to the important fact that the Trini
tarian view as to God develops side by side with the perfect
ing of the idea of religion and the completing of the religious
relationship between God and man. God reveals himself to us
through Christ ; he reveals himself in us through the Holy Spirit.

We began the present section by undertaking to show the rela
tion of Christian experience to the phenomena of religion gener
ally. In the end we find that religion finds its consummation and
completion only as it becomes experiential. The grace of God in
Christ applied to the heart of the believer through the Holy Spirit
in an ethically transforming life " under the eye and in the
strength " of the Eternal Father, becomes the crown and goal of
man's religious life.

Conclusions from the 'Study of Comparative Religion

Certain conclusions thrust themselves upon us as a result of
the preceding survey of the religious life of men. First, the
higher elements in all the others are found in superior form
in the Christian religion. Secondly, all the others lack some-

[ 102]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

thing which the Christian religion supplies. Thirdly, the argu
ment for the truth of Christianity gains great strength from the
fact that it is the goal and crown of the other religions. It is fool
ish to argue against Christianity because it contains all the fine
elements of the ethnic faiths, as if it were derived from them.
Its greatness appears in part, in the fact that it presents in syn
thetic unity all the elements of true religion. Fourthly, apart from
Christianity, there are only three courses conceivable in the future
religious life of mankind. Men may go backward to the faith be
low the Christian level; or they may reject all the distinctive ele
ments of religion and attempt to substitute something else in its
place ; or there may arise a religion superior to Christianity. The
first course is not at all probable. Mankind are not likely to
accept Buddhism or Mohammedanism instead of Christianity;
and if not these, certainly none of the other ethnic religions.
The second is also unlikely. Some moderns who approach re
ligion from the purely rationalistic standpoint fail to understand
it, and devise theories of " values " which may be pursued to the
neglect of the distinctively religious values. But men are " in
corrigibly " religious in their instincts. Comparative religion
shows this. No merely scientific or intellectual values can ever
supply the place of religion in man's life. As to the third course,
it is always open to any one to predict the rise of a religion
superior to Christianity. But no one can now intimate wherein
such superiority may or can consist. Besides this, Christianity
leaves no religious value or craving unsatisfied for any who
know it in an experiential way. For them it is sufficient, and final,
and, in the legitimate sense of the word, absolute. There is no
occasion for hesitation in asserting, therefore, that Christianity
is the final religion.

V. CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO PHILOSOPHY

The history of the word philosophy shows that it has under
gone many changes of meaning. As used by most modern writers
and as employed here it means the explanation of experience, of

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

truth, and of reality, regarded as a whole. The aim of philosophy
is to discover the underlying principle or principles of the uni
verse. Its further aim is to express the meaning of the universe
in a world-view which combines all the parts of being into a
coherent unity. There are several points of emphasis in the above
definition of philosophy. The first is that philosophy arises out
of human experience. This is the great and significant gain
of modern as compared with ancient philosophies. Men formerly
adopted some a priori or abstract principle, and from it deduced
the meaning of the universe. Now they ask, first of all, What
are the facts of life and experience? Then they inquire into
the ultimate meaning of the facts. Thus all modern philosophy
which challenges attention has an empirical or experiential founda
tion. It has sometimes been felt that this fact renders philosophy
hostile to religion. On the contrary, it is in the highest degree
favorable if we are to regard religion itself as founded on facts.
Human experience in general, on which philosophy is founded, is
very closely related to religious experience and the realities dis
closed in it.

A second point of emphasis is truth. One of the most crucial
and fundamental questions in philosophy is that regarding truth,
what it is, and how it arises. Here again there is the closest
possible connection with experience. We know truth in and
through human experience. All the special sciences have their
modes of approach and methods of discovering truth. Physical
science is especially concerned with the mechanical system of
causation as seen in physical nature. Biology deals with the
series of living forms and the laws of their development. Psy
chology traces the laws of mental action. So with all the sciences.
The study of the data actually given in the various departments,
our concrete human reactions upon the realities with which we
deal, gives rise to the truths discovered in all the sciences. Philos-
ophy seeks to combine all departments of truth into a universal
and coherent system of truth.

A third point of emphasis is reality. Philosophy seeks to go
beyond the real as given in phenomena. It asks, What is ultimate

[ 104]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

reality? The various systems of philosophy arise out of the
attempt to answer this question. But it is of the utmost im
portance to rememher that we can only know what ultimate
reality is by observing reality as we know it in experience. Of
course we cannot thus know the supreme reality in a perfect
manner. But our knowledge of the ultimately real must, for
philosophy, be grounded in the actual realities of life itself.

A fourth point of emphasis is unity and comprehensiveness.
Philosophy seeks a complete explanation of all things, so far as
this is humanly possible. It would discover, as it were, a cord
long enough and strong enough to tie up all the facts and real
ities of existence in a single bundle. The passion and romance
of modern philosophy have grown out of the anxious search for
such a comprehensive principle of being. The ideal and demand
for unity are irrepressible in the minds of thinking men. We
yearn for a key which will unlock all the mysteries. We are dis
contented until we find it.

The four points just presented supply a framework for in
dicating where and how many systems of modern philosophy
come short and will serve as a warning to us in the effort to relate
philosophy to Christian experience.

As based on experience, any philosophy will fail which does not
recognize human experience as a whole. All men, even philos
ophers and theologians, are fragments of humanity. It is not at
all easy to do full justice to all human experience. In an age
of specialism many men lose the capacity to sympathize with
other forms of life and experience. The great soul with the great
horizon, and the corresponding wisdom, is rare. As a con
sequence of this, philosophers tend to become the result of in
dividual and personal reactions upon the world. A great modern
writer has said that philosophic systems are largely esthetic pro
ductions, matters of taste and preference rather than convincing
world-views. There is truth enough in the statement to put every
one on guard. A man's predispositions and preferences, due
to early or later training, inevitably influence him in the forma
tion of his world-view. But it is obvious that the true and final

[105]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

philosophy must be derived, not from merely individual experi
ence, but from human experience as a whole, or some form
of that experience which is comprehensive of all other forms.

Again, philosophies often fail because they do not do justice
to the idea of truth. Philosophy is often described as an attempt
to give a rational interpretation of the universe. The logical
faculty is thus emphasized. The reason is made supreme. The
feelings, the will, and the moral nature of man are ignored, or
regarded as irrelevant in the search of " pure reason " for ulti
mate truth. The fatal objection to this is that the existence of
a " pure reason " is an unfounded assumption. Man knows
nothing of a reason detached from feeling and will. Abstract
rationality is a very poor guide to truth. The logical faculty
may operate with unerring precision in dealing with myths and
fancies, as well as with facts. We must first obtain the material
for thought from life's experiences before logic can advance a
single step toward truth. All recent psychology confirms this
statement. The day of abstract philosophies, built up out of the
truths derived from a so-called " pure reason," is past. The sys
tem of truth is built up out of the processes of life. Philosophy
must reckon with this fact.

Again, error arises in philosophy when the philosopher adopts
a narrow view of reality. Broadly speaking, there are two
spheres of reality as known to us, the physical and the spiritual.
Both matter and mind are given to us in experience. They are
the data, the material, on which thought must work. They are
not so much problems for thought as they are the materials of
thought. They are objects to be explained, but not objects to
be explained away. It has often occurred in the history of
philosophy that thinkers have assumed the reality of some one
element of being and the unreality of the others. Entire systems
have been built up in this way. It is of course quite proper to
search for a unifying principle, but it must really unify, not
ignore or annul any of the real factors of life and being.

Again, philosophies, or world-views, are often defective in the
failure to find a comprehensive principle of explanation. Philos-

[106]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

o

ophy seeks some phase or aspect of being, some type-phenomenon,
which is a key to the meaning of the whole. Now it is clear at
once that there is a wide range of choice in this matter. One
thinker may be most impressed with the uniformity of natural
law, and conclude that the key to the meaning of all things is
to be found in matter, force, and motion. Another may be im
pressed particularly with the processes of human thought, and con
clude that all forms of being are forms of thought. Another is
most impressed with will, and by means of the will-principle he
constructs his philosophy. Yet another is most deeply moved
by the fact and the idea of personality, and on it he founds
his philosophy. Thus arise the various philosophies. They are
many, and to a certain extent they increase from generation to
generation. The three or four to which we have just referred
are among the most typical of current philosophies, vis., material
ism, idealism, and personalism. 'The point of emphasis here is
that to be final, a philosophy must be truly comprehensive of the
various elements of the realities we know in experience. Other
wise it is certain to be a transient mode of thought.

Once more, a philosophy may come short in its effort to unify
the elements of being. The monistic principle has had great
emphasis in modern systems. But many of the monistic ex
planations fail at certain crucial points. As a result, contradictory
systems have arisen. Men have adopted a dualistic, or plural
istic theory on the assumption that it is not possible to find a
really monistic bond among the varied forms of reality.

Now it is clear that the search for unity is an irrepressible in
stinct of the human mind. It seems to be organic in our mental
constitution. Hence it is inevitable in the philosophic movement.
But one of the greatest needs to-day is sanity and wisdom in the
use of the principle. Monistic explanations which do not explain,
unifying bonds which do not unify, are dangerous instruments of
thought And while these are certain to arise as working prin
ciples, hypotheses for verification, it is the part of the highest
wisdom to recognize them as such until some principle is proved
to be the true and final one.

[107]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

VI. MODERN WORLD-VIEWS

We may now examine briefly a few of the philosophic systems
which specially claim attention from theology.

i. We begin with Agnosticism, which denies the possibility of
knowledge of ultimate reality. In its modern form agnosticism
is founded on Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena,
or appearances and the thing-in-itself. The view is that we may
observe and know appearances, but not the realities behind them.
The latter are entirely hidden from our view. It is not denied
that there are such realities, but only that they are beyond
our faculties and powers. The agnostic attitude is adopted some
times in the interest of religion itself, and sometimes in the in
terest of natural science, which is held to be the sole realm of
genuine knowledge. But in both respects it is an untenable and
dangerous attitude of mind.

The objections to agnosticism, briefly stated, are the following :

First, there is no ground for assuming that ultimate reality
is unrelated to our finite knowing powers. In all our reasonings,
we take it for granted that there is a correspondence or agreement
between our knowing and the objects known. The real test is in
what we actually know, not in some theory of what we can or
cannot know.

Secondly, agnosticism asserts much in its assertions as to our
inability to know and our objects of knowledge. To assert that
there is an unknowable which cannot be known is self-contra
dictory. To know that it exists is important knowledge, and to
know that we cannot know it implies almost infinite knowledge
about our own minds as well as of its objects.

Thirdly, agnosticism contradicts itself in its view of our capacity
to know and our limitations of knowledge. Its conclusion as to
ultimate reality is itself an item of knowledge for the agnostic.
But the assertion of our incapacity to know it at once suggests a
doubt also as to the reliability of this item of knowledge. Thus
the corner-stone of all knowledge is destroyed along with the
superstructure in the agnostic view of the world.

[108]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

Fourthly, agnosticism builds on a narrow view of human knowl
edge. Huxley gave the word currency in recent times, and he
limited knowledge and proof to mathematical formulae and the
laws of nature. This limitation is now a very generally dis
credited view of knowledge. The moral and spiritual worlds
also contain objects of knowledge. These must be taken into
account. Our theory of knowledge must conform to the facts.
Agnosticism ignores some of the facts.

Fifthly, agnosticism is destructive of our moral and spiritual
values. To assert man's incapacity to know God is to take away
the most powerful moral and spiritual incentive.

Finally, agnosticism is built upon a partial and abstract theory
of the world of experience. We do not know nature and her
laws, as apart from and independent of our own minds. All the
facts of man's mental, moral, and spiritual life must be included
in any theory of knowledge which will hold in philosophy. It is
a mere abstraction therefore to take the physical world by itself
and leave out of account the world of spirit. In other words, we
know many forms of mental activity which do not belong to the
world of phenomena at all. Yet they are quite as real, indeed
they are the most real of all forms of reality known to us. The
facts require, therefore, that we shall include in our theory of
knowledge, not only appearances, things seen and heard and
felt, but also the invisible things of the mind and spirit.

2. Materialism takes matter to be the key to the ultimate mean
ing of the universe. Given matter, force, and motion, as these are
found in nature, and you can explain all else, according to mate
rialism. Mind states are the product of brain states. Material
ism makes use of the law of the conservation, or transformation,
of energy to make good its claim. All mental or physical phe
nomena, all the moral and spiritual activities of man are simply
aspects of the transformation of force. The objections to
materialism are most conclusive.

(i) The foundation on which materialism rests is much too
narrow in view of the facts of nature and the world of human
experience. The law of the transformation of energy is limited

[1091

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

in its application. It does not explain life. The living does not
arise from the non-living. At least, science has not shown that
it does. Mind states have nothing in common with brain states.
These never pass into each other. There is a close parallelism
between them, indeed, but a great gulf separates them.

(2) Mind and will have qualities rising above the physical.
Man can make himself an object of thought. There is nothing
like this power found in matter. The human will is a true
cause. It can originate movements. Matter is always an effect.
It originates nothing. Man's power of choice, his freedom, his
power of attention, are all traits which lift him high above the
world of matter. Human personality transcends physical nature.
Man's moral and religious life are entirely above all that we
discover in the realm of the merely physical. Man employs mat
ter for his ends. Nature becomes his instrument. Thus man's
superiority to nature appears.

(3) The evidence of purpose or plan in nature is strong and
clear. We can understand this if we refer it to a personal Spirit
who controls, but it is wholly beyond us if the world is nothing
but matter, force, and motion. Materialism ignores all morality
and religion. It is helpless wherever it attempts to explain them.
Yet these are facts, the most significant facts of all man's human
experience.

Our conclusion is that materialism does not explain mind, will,
and spirit. It only explains them away. It cancels one set of
facts in order to exalt another set. It does not take experience
as it is given to us. It rather makes experience over again into
its own image and likeness. It is an abstract system. It seeks
to unify the facts of being, but ignores the higher facts of being.
It is to be rejected, therefore, without hesitation.

3. Idealism takes thought itself as the principle of explanation.
Thus it is in its fundamental meaning the opposite of materialism.
There are many varieties of idealism. We deal here with its
essential elements only.

Idealism begins with the assertion that the only world we know
is a thought- world. This does not mean that our individual per-

[ITO]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

sonal thoughts are the only realities. That form of subjective
idealism need not detain us. Idealism asserts rather that the real
objective world of things is known to us only in thoughts about
them. They are presented to us, and we think them, their colors,
shapes, sounds, all their qualities and attributes. Apart from
our thoughts about these objects they have for us no existence.
Things then are essentially thoughts. But since there are un
doubtedly things beyond our consciousness which have never
entered our thoughts, there must be another and higher con
sciousness for which they exist. Unless things exist for some
consciousness somewhere, we cannot conceive of them as exist
ing at all. If things are anywhere and at any time unrelated to
thought, they cease to have any meaning. They become wholly
unknowable, which is equivalent to saying they are non-existent.

Idealism generalizes the above view into a philosophy of the
nature of being as a whole. Not matter, but thought is the corner
stone of our whole human experience. This basal fact is the key
to the meaning of the world. The world is a universal con
sciousness. God is the great thinker. He is realizing himself
in us and in nature by thinking us. We are parts of him. Our
imperfect thoughts, our hunger for more knowledge, are just the
infinite mind expressing itself in our finite minds. The world is
thus unified by the conception that thoughts and things are one,
and that all finite thinkers are aspects or phases of the thought
of the infinite thinker. Idealism is thus a monistic system.
Fundamentally living is reduced to one element.

(i) We note briefly how far it is tenable and how far un
tenable. Idealism is right in asserting that all things are con
stituted in and for thought. We cannot escape this conviction if
we reflect upon the matter at all. Idealism is correct also in the
denial of the independent reality of matter. The only matter we
know, or can know, is matter as related to thought, dependent
upon thought. Thus idealism is correct also in passing from out
ward things into consciousness to find the true meaning of ulti
mate reality. Idealism pursues a correct method in building its
world-view on the facts of our experience.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

(2) On the other hand, however, it must be said that idealism
does not fully explain the differences between thoughts and things.
Things have extension ; thought has not. Again, it is to a certain
extent abstract in separating thought from the other elements of
consciousness. Will and emotion, moral and spiritual impulses,
are found there as well as thought. Again, idealism makes finite
beings parts of the infinite in ways that are hard to understand.
If we as thinkers are merely organs of the infinite thinker, it
is not easy to see how he, the infinite, can be omniscient in him
self and commit the many errors and sins which abound in the
finite phases of himself. There is also a strong tendency in
idealism to cancel human freedom and personality. A monistic
view of the universe which makes the thought process supreme
finds it exceedingly difficult to care for the interests of the will
and the moral and spiritual in man. Idealism is a great im
provement on materialism, and in some of its later forms gives
more attention to the interests named. But in its abstract form
it may lead to results which are little if any better than those of
materialism and fatalism.

4. Personalism is another type of modern philosophic thought.
It is a decided improvement on abstract idealism. It sees clearly
that life is more than thoughts, more than presentations and
ideas. Personalism emphasizes the synthetic unity of conscious
ness. It recognizes all the factors of consciousness, including
the will and feelings as well as the intellect. It emphasizes man's
growth in knowledge and experience. It takes man in the totality
of his relations, to nature, to other persons in human society,
and to God. It recognizes the common experiences of men and
the law of reason by which they understand each other and their
own experiences.4

From these fundamental facts, recognized and admitted by all
thinkers of all schools, personalism builds up its general world-
view. Its conclusions are that the ultimate reality is a Person;
that we as the creation of his hands are true persons; that we
are endowed with freedom; that the divine Person is working

* Cf . Bowne, "Personalism," pp. 20, 21.

[112]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

out a purpose in human society; and that the goal of history is
a perfect society of men and women in fellowship with God.

In reference to physical nature, personalism agrees with ideal
ism in the view that nature in all its parts is constituted in and
for thought; that time and space are forms of thought under
which we apprehend the world rather than independent realities.
It holds further that the infinite Person, God, contains all finite
existence in himself. The finite is related to the infinite and is
in actual communication with it and not separated from it by an
impassable gulf. Personalism maintains that the key to the
meaning of physical nature is the divine purpose which runs
through it; that the crown and goal of nature is its highest out
come, man himself; that we must understand the beginning in
the light of the outcome and not attempt to cancel the higher ele
ments in the outcome. This is done when we assume some
single primary element of being like matter, force, or motion,
or even abstract thought, and then resolve all the higher elements
back into this.

The considerations advanced to support this view are many and
cogent. First of all, personalism is a philosophy erected on a
broad foundation of fact and experience. One method of philos
ophy is to abstract matter from thought and draw the conclu
sion of materialism. Another is to abstract thought itself from its
context in our human personal life and draw the conclusion of
abstract idealism. Personalism avoids both abstractions. It
takes reality as it finds it. Man is subject. He thinks. The
world is object for man's thoughts. Reality as we know it, then,
includes the subject-object relation. But the object is not a
bare thinker. He is an acting person with will, plan, purpose, and
a goal of endeavor. Personalism thus recognizes all that the
conception of personality implies and employs it as trie " type-
phenomenon " to explain the world.

Secondly, personalism is strong in its explanation of first and
final causes. The idea of causation is a very difficult one. We
cannot dwell upon it here except to point out one or two pertinent
facts. Physical science knows no first cause. All the natural

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

causes are, first of all, effects of previous causes. There is
thus only an infinite regress of causes, all of which are on the
physical level. A causes b, and b causes c, and c causes d, and
so on indefinitely. No first cause, that is, no real cause, is ever
found by this method. Now personalism asserts that the human
will is, in a relative sense at least, a first cause. From it we
derive our first and fundamental conception of causation. The
will is not the result of the transformation of force. It is
a cause on a higher level. Personalism thus reaches the idea of
the divine will on an experiential basis. The will of God is the
moving and efficient cause of all things working toward a
divine end.

In the third place, personalism is strong in its account of human
knowledge. Recognizing that men communicate with each other,
that the thoughts of one mind may be known by other minds, it
finds no difficulty in the further thought that God can make
known to us the contents of his mind. Recognizing also that all
objective things are constituted in and for thought, it is not dif
ficult to make the transition to the idea that the world about us
is God speaking to us. As language requires for its understand
ing intelligence in the speaker and hearer, so the created world
as a language intelligible to us implies intelligence in the power
which produces and maintains it. Our intelligence is thus the
response to the divine intelligence and marks the universe as a
coherent and harmonious whole. We do not live in chaos, but
in a world where the part answers to the whole and the whole
can communicate itself to the part.

Fourthly, personalism also gives an account of freedom which
places it high among philosophic world-views. As the world
is the result of God's action, the self-impartation of the divine
Being to his creation, so man is, in a higher sense, God imparting
himself to his creature. It is but one step from this to the doc
trine of man's freedom. God is the most free of all beings and
in making man in his own image he makes man free. It belongs to
the very essence of the divine image in man that he should be free.
Thus personalism escapes the pantheistic result which follows

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

the denial of personality in God. If God is merely an impersonal
substance identical with the totality of being, then man cannot
be a free person. He is then only a transient, a passing phase
of the eternal substance.

Fifthly, personalism is strong in interpretation of the mean
ing of physical nature. There are here the following points to
be noted: (i) Nature, being constituted in and for thought, is
a part of God's self -revelation to man; (2) since the only nature
we know is the nature we find in our human experience (nature
related to personality), we are bound to take nature in its rela
tion to the infinite Person as its deepest meaning; (3) since man
is the crown of nature we must assume that he is its end and goal ;
(4) and since man employs nature in a thousand ways for his
ends, we must conclude that personality is superior to the physical
and more completely fulfils the divine ends; and (5) in inter
preting nature as a system of laws, and as under the operation
of causation in the physical sense, we are not warranted in tak
ing it as if it existed independently of all personal relationships.
Our view of nature must include the most immediate and in
sistent of all the facts we know about it, namely, its relation
to personal beings. This will prevent the dangerous tendency
so often observed, to permit physical nature to impose its laws
on the higher personal world. We may not, in Tennyson's words,
in another connection, " set the feet above the brain and swear
the brain is in the feet."

Sixthly, personalism has much to commend in its account of
God's relations to the universe, (i) It insists upon the unity
of nature, man, and God. It interprets the universe as spirit.
Time and space are forms of our apprehension of the objective
world. This, however, is not the pantheistic unity which iden
tifies God and nature and makes matter coeternal with God.
The world is God's creation. It is the sphere in which he is ful
filling his purposes. The monistic principle of personalism simply
means that there is no irreconcilable dualism as between God
and nature. It refuses to make nature coeval with God, but
insists that it came forth from God, and is yet subject to his

[us]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

guiding hand. (2) Personalism insists upon the immanence of
God in the world. But here again it is not the pantheistic im
manence which asserts that reality is a two-sided impersonal
substance, one of which is thought and the other extension. Per
sonalism is strongly opposed to pantheism at this point. But
personalism asserts strongly God's presence in the natural order,
his action within it and his movement through it toward his goal.
(3) Personalism emphasizes the transcendence of God as well
as his immanence. But here again it is not a transcendence in the
old deistic sense. The world is not a machine which God made
and then abandoned to itself. God is, indeed, above the world,
but not apart from it. His transcendence means his superiority
to the created universe. It means that the world does not ex
haust God. God is more than all created things. (4) Person
alism insists also upon God's presence in human history. As per
sonality is the most significant, the highest factor of being known
to us, personalism takes the view, well supported by its premises,
that the development and perfecting of a society of persons is the
chief end of history, the divine goal in the ongoing of the world.

It is in connection with God's presence in history that we find
some of the clearest and strongest of all the supports of person
alism. Every department of human endeavor at once becomes
radiant with divine light when we consider them from this point
of view. They all converge upon the one central truth of per
sonality as the key to the meaning of the world. We look briefly
at the chief departments of human activity.

a. First, consider physical science. Man's achievements in
this department and his thirst for ever greater knowledge are
the tokens of the divine presence in man working toward the
goal of a universal kingdom of truth. Then too, the response
of creation to man's efforts, the secrets which it yields up to his
search, are sure tokens that it was constituted for the truth-seeker,
that behind it is the great Being who is infinite truth. Man's
insatiable desire for greater and greater knowledge of nature,
and nature's response to his quest are both powerful witnesses
to God's existence, yea, rather to his presence everywhere in

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

his creation. The scientific consciousness thus has implicit in it
the consciousness of God. It is the consciousness of the finite
knower seeking satisfaction in the knowledge of the infinite.

b. Consider next morality. Since the days of Immanuel Kant,
the presence in man of a moral imperative has been a com
monplace in philosophic thought. What does the presence of
that imperative signify? It signifies that the supreme moral ideal
is inwrought in the very fabric of man's being. The existence of
a supreme moral standard is not something we infer from some
thing else. It is rather something we find existing in the very
texture of reality itself, in man's moral nature. In the last analy
sis the ground and source of that moral standard can only be
found in God himself, the infinite Person. A pantheistic world-
ground has no moral significance. The distinction between right
and wrong is meaningless apart from the fact of a supreme
moral person. Man's failure to attain the moral ideal, his
struggle and slow progress toward it in his individual and social
life, are not opposed to, but in harmony with, the idea of the
supremely good Being who is the fountain of all good. Man's
quest for the moral ideal, his gradual approach to liberty, justice,
and love in the social order, particularly his discontent with all
actual attainments, can only be explained as the expression of
his relations with the infinite, the eternal goodness. Personalism
thus supplies a key for the explanation of moral phenomena
which can scarcely be found in any system denying the cardinal
position of personality in the universe. The moral is but another
name for the personal.

c. Consider also briefly man's esthetic and artistic activities.
The love of the beautiful is implanted in us when we come into
the world. But here again man's motto is, " I count not myself
to have attained." The genius paints a great picture, carves
a great statue, writes a great poem, produces a great musical
composition, or erects an architectural masterpiece. There is a
momentary contentment with his handiwork. He may even feel
that this is the end and goal. Nothing more splendid seems
possible. But it is a transient emotion. There soon rises in him

["73

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

a sense of higher possibilities, and once more he seizes brush or
chisel and produces other masterpieces. Thus man's masterpieces
become steps of the endless stairway leading up toward the in
finite ideal of the beautiful. And this again is a witness to the
fact that the nature of man reflects God's image.

d. We arrive at the same conclusion when we trace the his
tory of philosophy. The craving for a rational interpretation of
the universe is insatiable in man. From one point of view the
history of philosophy is a discouraging study. System succeeds
system in ceaseless procession. Old systems return in modified
forms. New systems arise. Every system embodies some prin
ciple of explanation adequate from its own point of view. The
conflict is really a conflict of premises rather than of argument
or conclusions. But the supremely interesting thing about the
whole philosophic movement is man's unquenchable thirst for new
attempts to solve the world riddle. But for this and what is
implied in it, the unstable equilibrium of philosophy would seem
to present a hopeless outlook. But man was made for truth,
and we must also hold that truth awaits man's discovery. The
quest for truth is not hopeless. Now we can only account for
this thirst of man for a knowledge of the whole, this intellectual
torment which will not let him rest, by the view that it is the
reflection in him of the nature God gave him. It is the eternal
seeking expression in and through man, and guiding him to his
true heritage in the realm of universal truth. The bearing of
personalism on this is obvious. If there is a realm of universal
truth, if reality is constituted in a particular way open to the
investigation and discovery of personal beings, it can only be
because a supreme personal Being gave its constitution to the
real world. The distinction between truth and error is mean
ingless apart from the idea of personality. A truth is truth only
for some one. It cannot be truth merely suspended in midair.
Error can only be error because it is a departure from facts as
those facts have been constituted in truth. Pantheism here again
also cancels the conception of truth. Personalism alone can
maintain it.

["31

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

e. Psychology and the psychology of religion bear witness
to the same consciousness of the infinite in the finite conscious
ness of man. We need only recall here what was said in another
place. Man's social consciousness, his desire to realize himself
in a society of persons, awakens in him a craving for the society
of the perfect, the ideal, and supreme Person. This explains the
human instinct of prayer. The primary question about prayer is
not whether God does or can answer prayer. It is rather the
question why men actually pray. Of course the prayer instinct
is marred by sin, blinded by ignorance and superstition often,
sometimes almost entirely absent from certain types of men.
Yet when we take a wide view of the psychology of religion
the impulse to pray is practically universal among men. Here
again we encounter the ineradicable conviction in man of the
reality of the infinite Person from whom we came and on whom
we depend.

/. Comparative religion bears witness to the same truth.
The personal view of the universe supplies the key to all the
phenomena of the general religious life of mankind. If God
is an infinite person, and finite man is made in his image and
likeness holy and loving, we can rationally account for the irre
pressible human longing for God. The disturbed relations be
tween God and man can be explained by the sin principle in man.
And Christianity enters the scene of human struggle to find God,
and announces God's self-revelation in Christ and response to the
human need.

An Impersonal Universe

We need only consider briefly the opposing view in order to
receive a fresh and powerful impression of the general truth of
the personal interpretation of the world. Suppose the universe
is impersonal. Then every edifice of human culture and of
higher civilization falls in ruins. We note three of these.
First, the whole fabric of human thought collapses. This is be
cause the distinction between truth and error ceases to have
any meaning. Error can be accounted for as the mistake of a

["91

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

free intelligent person missing the way in his search for truth.
But unless there is an infinite Person who establishes standards
and criteria of truth, there is no such thing as error. Every
thought of every thinker is then but the manifestation of an im
personal substance or reality through the human consciousness.
It is not then the error of a self-determined free being, but
thought predetermined in precisely the same way as physical
results are predetermined by physical causes.

It follows, secondly, that all moral attainment ceases to have
meaning or value. Right means conformity to the moral con
stitution of the universe. Wrong means departure from it.
But if the world-ground is impersonal, nothing can be wrong
or right in the moral sense. Men are then no more than plants
or flowers or beasts who follow their natural instincts. To
resist those instincts is not only futile, but foolish. They are
of the very texture of our nature and thus of the nature of the
universe. It is thus utterly vain to seek an ethical basis for life
on any other than a personal view of the world.

In the third place, man's religious life becomes empty of all
meaning on the impersonal view. Religion then becomes a mere
functional make-believe. Men imagine gods because gods are
useful in the struggle for existence, not because they exist and
respond to man's needs. The ordinary intellect has little difficulty
in perceiving that such a view is the doom of religion. Intelligent
men despise make-believes and shams of all sort. Religion would
be very short-lived should this view prevail. But it cannot pre
vail because it clashes sharply with the whole religious history
of mankind. It is an abstract theory built out of elements of
religion taken apart from their context in man's religious life.
The reality of the religious object is essential to the religious idea.

General Conclusion as to Christian Experience and Other Forms

of Knowledge

We have now reviewed at some length the relation of Christian
experience to various other forms of knowledge. The aim has

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

been to show the unity of knowledge and the harmony of the
Christian view of the world with the most advanced forms of
modern culture. It is now in order to sum up the results of this
discussion in a brief general statement.

Broadly speaking, we may say that the Christian experience
of redemption through Christ is the true goal of all human experi
ence and the key to its meaning. We are redeemed from sin into
fellowship with the eternal God through Christ. We thus know
God actually by living contact with him. Christian experience
thus brings the question of God's existence out of the speculative
realm down into the sphere of the most vital realities of life.
It thus becomes the capstone in the structure of human en
deavor for the higher realities of the spirit. It is the distinct an
swer to the scientific craving for universal truth. It is the end
of the quest of the soul in search of the supreme fellowship
as psychology exhibits it. It definitely supplies all that man's
religious life seeks, and brings religion itself to realization. It
is the answer to man's philosophic inquiries as to the meaning of
the world. But it is an answer not in terms of logical deduction
or abstract reasoning. It is rather an answer in terms of life
and power. Christian experience is the dynamic required for
the realization of man's moral ideals. Thus it becomes the
fundamental condition for the full realization of his own personal
nature. Thus also it is the supreme constructive principle for the
realization of the ideal society, the kingdom of God.

We conclude then that all human experience implies what we
mean by religious experience. Psychology discloses man's desire
for the supreme Companion. Science as a method and ideal
exhibits man's sense of the unity of the parts of being and the
human thirst for complete knowledge. Ethics implies man's sense
of the morally perfect, the supremely good. Philosophy is the
ceaseless quest for ultimate explanation. Every form of religion
exhibits man's quest for victory and blessedness in fellowship
with some object of worship. Christianity is the response of
God to these human cravings in the crowning revelation of him
self through Jesus Christ.

[121]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

VII. PERSONALISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM

It has been customary hitherto in books of theology to discuss
at length formal arguments in proof of God's existence. We have
adopted another method made familiar by modern science. That
method is to seek the general view which seems to be required
by the facts. We have sought to indicate how personalism ex
plains the facts of nature and those which relate to man. We
have purposely omitted reference to difficulties and objections
in order that we might exhibit the view in all its strength. It is
in order now to notice two or three points by way of addition
and qualification.

The first thing to be observed is the relation of personalism to
the biblical teachings as to God. The biblical representations
of God are non-speculative. They do not deal with questions of
ontology, of essence and being. The Scriptures are not philo
sophic in their dealing with the facts of religion. Christian
theism, however, as taught in the New Testament, is in the chief
essentials the same as personalism as we have expounded it.
The Christian theistic view is that God is the infinite Spirit, per
sonal, holy, loving, purposive, immanent in the world, and tran
scendent. Personalism is in exact agreement with the New Testa
ment in these respects. The point at which personalism goes
beyond the Christian theistic view is its monistic tendency. Per
sonalism seeks to explain matter from the point of view of a
spiritual world-ground. It comes nearer to success in this respect
than any other form of modern philosophic thought. But it does
not remove all the difficulties, and until it does this it need not
be regarded as having reached its final form. But personalism
is unlike the monistic systems generally in certain fundamental
particulars, as follows: a. It insists upon the reality of human
personality. It combats the pantheistic tendency to make man a
transient phase of the impersonal and eternal substance, b. It
insists upon the personality of God. It is on this basis that it
explains man's personality, c. It insists upon human freedom.
d. It insists on purpose as the controlling factor in nature and

[122]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

history, e. It insists on freedom and immortality. /. It insists
upon man's capacity for God and the possibility of fellowship
between the infinite and finite persons.

It thus appears that personalism conserves the Christian values
while it goes beyond the Christian teaching at certain points.
The Christian interest has nothing to lose in welcoming every
effort of man's intellect to explain the ultimate meaning of the
world. As men increase in knowledge and wisdom and widen
their experience, they gradually approach the Christian view of
the world. Personalism is one of the finest flowers of philosophic
thought to-day. And it is interesting to observe its close affinity
with our Christian conception of God.

It may be well in closing this section to point out briefly how
Christian theism is related to philosophic world-views gener
ally. The former holds, on the most solid grounds, that God is
one, personal, spiritual, righteous, loving, purposive, and redemp
tive. This is the religious conviction as to God. Philosophy
seeks to explain the nature of being as a whole, the relations of
mind and matter, God's relations to the physical universe, and
deals indeed with all the ultimate problems of thought. With
many of these religion is only indirectly concerned. There is
therefore no necessary conflict between the interests of thought
in these ultimate forms and the interests of religion. Religion
should not attempt to curb the intellect, nor should the intellect
attempt to force world-views upon the religious man which are
subversive of religion itself. In the last resort the two interests
are identical. Man's activity in each sphere is the necessary com
plement to his activity in the other. But pending his attainment
of the ultimate goal of thought, and the complete unity of all the
elements of life, we must stand for the principle of freedom
both for the religious and for the intellectual life of man. This
point may be made clear by reminding ourselves that our ex
perience of God in Christ may be interpreted for the ends of the
religious life, in which case it becomes a system of theology;
or it may be interpreted for the ends of the general world-view,
in which case it becomes a system of metaphysics. Theology

r 123 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

inevitably and invariably runs back to methaphysics. But there
are problems in metaphysics whose solution is not essential to
religion or theology.

THE PROOFS OF GOD'S EXISTENCE

We have not developed in the preceding pages the arguments
for God's existence known in theology as the cosmological, teleo-
logical, anthropological, ontological, and moral proofs. As a
matter of fact, every one of them has been involved directly or in
directly in what has been written as to the personal view of the uni
verse. In their ordinary forms these arguments do not make so
strong an appeal as formerly on account of the prevalence of the
exact methods of physical science. As has been stated previously,
they are less convincing to the Christian believer than the knowl
edge of God derived from the revelation in Christ. But when
combined with the testimony of Christian experience the older
proofs contain great force. We consider them briefly.

i. We begin with the cosmological argument. This infers the
existence of God from the necessity of a cause adequate to ac
count for the universe. Every effect must have an adequate
cause. The universe is an effect. God is the only adequate
cause. The familiar objection is that this only proves a finite
cause since the universe is not infinite. But the scientific objection
is that it is not a cause discovered or given, but merely inferred.
Science explains by means of the principle of continuity or the
transformation of energy. You do not find any real explanation
until you find the identity between the consequence and its ante
cedent. Moreover, in inferring God from matter you leap across
the chasm which separates matter and spirit. The idea of God,
then, the scientist urges, explains nothing at all, or it explains
everything equally. This is a method of explanation which has
no scientific value whatever. This illustration will serve for!
the other forms of proof. The older ways of stating them have'
for many lost much of their force, not because they are without
force, but because they do not conform to modern methods and
criteria for estimating truth.

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

The truth in the cosmological argument is best seen by con
sidering the idea of causation. The older form of the argument
failed to grasp this idea properly, and the objection to it is based
on the same defect. We must distinguish between physical and
free causation. In the former we are thinking of the transforma
tion of energy. In the latter we think of the free acts of the
will. The question is as to which of these is to be given the
fundamental position. The Christian theist asserts that all our
conception of force, even in its physical manifestations, are de
rived ultimately from experience of the power of our own free
acts through the will. Man is a part of the universe, indeed the
highest of its finite parts known to us. In looking for the first
cause we are justified only if we take the highest form of cause
known to us as the type of cause which explains the universe as
a whole. So far Christian theism is warranted in going. Ideal
ism and personalism go a step further, and resolve all physical
forms of causation into forms of free causation. This is an
interesting philosophic explanation, but not necessary to Christian
theism. In a way it confirms the conclusion of the latter while
not supplying its chief ground.

The cosmological argument, however, is greatly reenforced
by the testimony of man's religious consciousness, his sense of
dependence. This sense of personal dependence on a higher
Power brings home to the heart the conviction which the reason
deduced from a contingent and dependent universe. If we extend
the cosmological argument and make it include the last-named
phase, we may trace the process of the reason in arriving at the
idea of God, in the following steps :

(i) Science discovers a series of causes which never reach
above the physical level. Causes and effects in nature present an
endless regress. A is produced by b, and b by c, and so on to the
end, if there were any end. The series is like a row of bricks fall
ing one against the other. But the mind cannot permanently rest
in explanation in this form. The reason inevitably demands
and seeks an originating cause which is not partly effect as well
as cause. What started the row of bricks to falling?

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

(2) In searching for this originating cause the human will sup
plies the best clue for our guidance. It is not the product of
physical continuity, it is free, and in a true sense it is an originat
ing finite cause. From the will then as a datum, a fact given, we
rise to the thought of an infinite will which originates and
sustains the universe. Thus a link of connection is found between
the world without and the world within.

(3) At this point another form of human experience comes to
reen force the reason. It is the sense of dependence found in the
universal religious consciousness. Schleiermacher declared this
sense of dependence to be of the essence of religion. It is not
now a dependent universe without, but a dependent personal
life within. The idea of contingency and dependence being thus
enlarged, the inference to an infinite First Cause is greatly
strengthened.

(4) Another step is taken in the Christian experience of re
demption through Christ. In it logical deduction finds new
material for its processes. Man's sense of dependence is met by
the personal redeeming God of love. The First Cause now be
comes a personal and purposive and loving power in the soul.
The craving of the reason is satisfied in a new way. But all
the other higher cravings of man are satisfied as well. Man finds
himself in his ethical nature, in his desire for power over sin,
in his sense of need for reconciliation with God, in his triumph
over the discords and contradictions of life. In a word, he finds
the end of the endless regress of causes. He finds God and
mental rest and spiritual blessedness and peace.

2. The teleological argument, based on the presence of evidence
of design in the world, may be treated in a similar way. The older
form of the argument selected individual instances of the adapta
tion of means to end, or of function to use, and inferred a divine
intention. The argument is very impressive, even in its older
form. On the lowest mechanical plane there are many indications
of the adaptation of means to end. The fitness of the planet to
be a dwelling-place for man depends upon marvelous combina
tions of material forces. These involve the relations of the earth

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

to the sun, giving rise to seasons, to suitable temperature, and to
meteorological conditions, and many other adaptations we need
not name here. There are also impressive evidences in the
organic world. The human eye and hand, the wing of a bird,
the fin of a fish, and a thousand other forms of adaptation of
organ to the preservation of life indicate the force of this proof
of God's existence from the indications of purposive adaptation
of means to end in the universe.

Modern evolution, however, seemed at first to destroy this
argument. All these adaptations, evolution insisted, are the
result of slow growth in the struggle for life, and not of design
on the part of the Creator. But this hypothesis was not a real
answer to the design argument. For the only result was to
widen the range of the proof and make it cover the whole history
of the universe and to embrace every detail and not merely occa
sional striking parts of being. If the universe is so organized
that order, beauty, and adaptation of means to end emerge step
by step all the way, then the argument is greatly strengthened.
Nature begins with the inorganic, and rises to the vital, and then
to the sentient, and then to the rational, moral, and personal,
reaching its climax in man. Thus the whole vast sweep of
cosmic history is an enlargement of the argument from design.
One phase of this argument applies to the development of the idea
of God. All growth is due to the adaptation of internal to external
relations. The organism corresponds to the environment. Now
the failure of either organism or environment results in death.
The idea of God or of gods is universal among men. It has
undergone change and development. The Scriptures exhibit be
lief in one supreme God, who has revealed himself to men. But
that which has kept alive the idea of God has been the reality of
God himself. Men are constituted for God, and apart from him
they are without peace. We may thus conceive of man's spirit as
a spiritual organism, and God as its necessary environment. The
adaptation of this organism to this environment, and of environ
ment to organism, is one of the most impressive of all the argu
ments from design.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

There are two well-known objections to the argument from
design. One is that it does not prove a Creator of the world,
but only an architect, a builder, who used previously existing
materials. In reply we first refer to the cosmological proof which
deals especially with the original causal relation of God to the
world. But it is to be replied further that the objection over
looks the need for preexisting material which was itself adapted
to the end in view. The atom, or molecule, or whatever was
the ultimate form of matter, must have had particular qualities
which the alleged builder employed in the building. The bricks
must have possessed durability and other qualities required for
a structure which could endure. It follows from this that the
objection does not eliminate the need for an original Creator,
since the alleged preexisting material could only have originated
as a part of a larger plan. All must have been designed. In
other words, no beginning can be imagined which did not contain
potentially all that was evolved from it. Thus we come again
upon the endless row of bricks and the endless regress of causes
in searching for the beginning of design. And once again we
conclude that a personal and purposive Being created the world.

Another objection to the design argument is that it does not
prove an infinite, but only a very great intelligence, since the uni
verse is not infinite. This, however, is not a very serious objec
tion. The mind has little difficulty in ascribing infinite power
and wisdom to a Being who could produce so vast a system as
our universe. Besides, the objection proceeds on the absurd
assumption that an infinite Being would have to create another
infinite in order to prove his infinitude. So to become an infinite
cause God would have to produce a second God who was his
equal.

We may now restate the design argument in somewhat dif
ferent terms, although inclusive of the valid elements in former
statements. Fundamentally our question is whether the universe
as a whole, including man and nature, gives evidence of intel
ligence and purpose. Or did it originate by chance ? The answer
to these questions includes far more than particular instances of

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

adaptation. There are a number of powerful considerations
pointing to the presence of design in the universe.

1 i ) The gradualness of nature's methods is not opposed to, but
rather favors design. It was often urged by opponents of design
that if you only allow time enough you can explain everything
by natural causes without the need of design. For example,
nature unaided can produce an eye by infinitesimal changes
covering great periods of time. She could not do this by a
sudden leap forward. God is not needed in a world that moves
forward by slow degrees. This reasoning confounded cause with
method. It taxes credulity to the limit to suppose that there was
no thought of an eye originally if any eye results from the ongoing
of the world. The necessity for design and purpose is deepened
and intensified thus, not eliminated. The various forms of the
evolutionary theory are now contesting the question as to the
genetic relationships between organic forms. The mutation theory
of progress by sudden leaps now holds the center of the stage.
But the evidence of design is not in any sense weakened, but
rather increased, on the hypothesis of long periods of growth.

(2) The presence of design is made clear by the answer of in
telligence in nature to intelligence in man. Every science dealing
with natural law assumes the intelligibility of the world about
vis. It is the fact that nature thus responds to our intelligence
which convinces us that intelligence was here before us. The
footprints of a personal God are everywhere before us in nature.
As the lump of wet clay which you hold in your hand carries
the impression of the lines of your palm, so the universe is
stamped with the intelligence of the Maker. The idealistic philos
ophy insists that reason is the very warp and woof of all being.
At all events there is no spot or aspect of nature which does not
bear the stamp of intelligence.

(3) The design argument is greatly strengthened by the pro
gressive series of organic forms leading up to man, who is the
crown and goal of nature. Orderly progress, covering vast
periods, and moving with undeviating steps toward the goal, is
exceedingly impressive. The true continuity of the world thus

1 [ 129 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

appears to be the continuity of a vast purpose inclusive of all
the parts. A superintending intelligence which knew the end
from the beginning is the only possible explanation. The lower
continuity of physical nature which can be best understood as
orderly progress toward a prearranged goal, is best understood
as secondary and subordinate to the higher personal end which
appears in man. All of nature thus becomes a vast system of
design.

(4) Here again we return to the teaching of Christ and the
Christian experience. In his providential dealings with his child,
God continually gives proof of his superintending intelligence
and power. And so in man's own personal life is to be found
a supplementary proof for the design argument. Especially does
the goal of a perfected moral character in a perfected moral king
dom, which we see in its earthly beginnings, enhance the value
of the proof from design.

3. The anthropological proof of God's existence, which infers
from man's spiritual constitution a cause adequate to the pro
duction of the effect, is changed in form, but loses nothing in
force. The more recent statement of it simply takes man as the
highest type of being, and from his personality and spirituality
erects a world-view which provides for an infinite personal spirit.
It is the same in method with all modern opposing theories, but
very much stronger in its appeal. Every modern philosophy,
as we have seen, finds some representative " type-phenomenon "
in the world as we know it, and constructs its philosophy on this
foundation. Now to take man himself as the " type-phenomenon "
is by far the best selection. It is superior to materialism, because
materialism takes the lowest form of existence to explain the
highest. It is superior to abstract idealism because the latter
takes thought apart from personality. It is superior to all other
general world-views in that it employs the highest form of
reality known to us to explain all other forms.

4. We note briefly the ontological argument for God's exis
tence. This proceeds as follows : Man has in his mind a concep
tion of the perfect being. A perfect being cannot be dependent,

[130]

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

but must be self-existent. Now since God is the perfect being
and existence an attribute of perfection, God must exist. This
is essentially the argument, although it is not so simply stated
by Anselm and Descartes and others. It is curious how many
people have misunderstood this form of argument for God's
existence. It is simply a combination of the idea of perfection
and that of necessary existence, and then an inference that a
being corresponding to this conception must exist. It is really
a definition of God, not a proof that he exists.

And yet approached in another and less formal manner, human
experience has something to say in confirmation of what is in
tended in the ontological argument.

(i) The restatement of the ontological argument takes the
form of an inference from the unity of the human reason with
the universe of reality around us. Nature may be compared
to a book which we read. Our capacity for reading it implies
that there is agreement between our mental constitution and the
constitution of nature. And this agreement implies further that
nature originates in a source which is itself constituted in essen
tially the same way. The author of the book, the book itself,
and the reader of the book are united in a common bond of
intelligence. The conclusion is drawn that the reason which we
find in ourselves is part of a universe grounded in reason. And
since reason is joined to will and personality in us, we infer will
and personality also in God.

The same idea may be expressed as follows: We think of all
material objects in terms of time and space, of cause and effect,
of number and quantity, of substance and quality. Our minds
are so made that we cannot think otherwise. These relations
and others express the fundamental laws of thought. Our mental
life would come to an end, our minds would cease to be minds,
if this power should fail us. Now in nature we find objects
existing in these relations. They are in time and space, they
follow each other, as cause and effect, they are presented to us
in these various relationships in the world around us. And thus
by a necessity of thought we are driven to the inference of an

f 131 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

underlying unity. A supreme intelligence is the only clue to the
bond of unity between man and nature.

(2) Observe the nature of the argument. I do not infer that
God exists simply because I have in my mind a conception of
a perfect being to whom belongs the quality of self-existence. I
infer that he exists because I find the whole of being known to

/ me constituted in and for intelligence. Man and nature answer
to each other in their rational constitution. Nothing exists which
is unrelated to reason. The thought expressed on the pages of
the book, the capacity of the reader to understand the thought,
and the author of the book are all bound together by a common
bond. In each of them the other two are implicated.

(3) The force of the argument will become clearer if we ex
press it in the form of our intuitions of truth. An intuition
is a self-evident truth. It arises upon presentation to our minds
of the data to which it relates. There are a number of these
which illustrate what is meant. They arise as a result of our
interaction with nature and society, and in our religious life.
The intuition of cause and effect is an invariable form of human
experience. Only a highly speculative process of reasoning can
shake our belief in it, and even then not for long at a time.

.We have also the moral intuition of right and wrong. Moral
standards vary, but the intuition remains. Again, we have the
intuition of dependence and independence. The two are in-
dissolubly joined together. The one cannot be conceived apart
from the other. So also is the intuition of the finite and the
infinite. The thought of one implies the thought of the other.

(4) Now if we stop at this point we have strong cumula
tive proof of God's existence. When we unify these intuitions
in our thought, we cannot escape the conclusion that a being exists
who unites in himself all the supreme qualities implied in these
intuitions. He is the supreme cause, the ultimate moral standard,
the perfectly independent and underived being, the infinite and
perfect God. But we cannot consistently refrain from going
a step farther. We have also the religious intuition. We seek
help and fellowship from higher powers. This is distinct from the

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

intuitions of the reason we have just named. It arises in the
depths of our being, from a deep sense of need. All the other
intuitions in some degree enter into it, but it is more than all
the others. And here again in the revelation of God in Christ
and in the redemption he brings, we find our true goal. The
intuitive and spontaneous processes of the soul are met by the
great reality itself. Thus man finds self-fulfilment in all the
parts of his rational, moral, emotional, and spiritual nature. He
now perceives that the very make and pattern of his soul carried
the idea and the evidence of God's existence.

5. We consider finally the moral argument for God's existence.
Here all modern thinking runs back to Kant. And it is in con
nection with his view and that of his followers we can best set
forth with clearness our own. Kant's theory of knowledge lay at
the foundation. We can only know phenomena, not the realities
behind the phenomena. God is not a phenomenon. He is, if he
exists, a spiritual being. Hence he is not for us an object of
knowledge. But conscience is a reality in man. The sense of
right and wrong, of freedom, of obligation to avoid the wrong
and do the right, is a part of our very being. A God of eternal
right, who seeks to produce moral character in us and an eternal
moral kingdom, is thus a postulate of the " practical reason."
We do not prove God's existence, but we need God and infer
that he exists.

(1) By this reasoning we advance beyond the conclusion of
any argument from physical nature. In these we may deduce
a God of intelligence, of skill, and of boundless power. But
in the moral argument from man's practical needs we deduce
a God who is moral and personal. With this thought we return
to nature and see that it also has a moral end. We descend from
man as moral and personal to the material universe and annex
it as a province, as it were, of a universal moral kingdom.

(2) There is great force in this argument. But Christianity
has enabled us to state it with much greater force than it contains
in Kant and in the Ritschlians who build on this theory of knowl
edge. Our experience of redemption through Christ brings

[133]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

knowledge of the reality behind phenomena. It brings direct
knowledge of God. We deduce God from our moral constitution.
But we meet God in our redeemed life. Moreover, the new life
which we have in Christ makes possible the attainment of the
moral ideal as never before. This knowledge of God and this
power of attainment are not only inferences from objective data;
they are also realities of our own spiritual life.

(3) If it be objected that the claim to direct knowledge of
God contravenes Kant's theory of knowledge, the Christian re
plies that theories of knowledge cannot alter facts. They must
conform to facts as they are found. Facts can be made to con
form to theories of knowledge only when the latter are adequate
to the end in view. But facts must come first, not theories about
them. The objector must first disprove the facts, not seek to
impose a theory of knowledge which fails to explain them.

General Conclusion

i. In concluding this section we may add that all the older
proofs of God's existence based on inference from the world
about us, are greatly rcen forced by the proofs derived from
Christian experience. The same ideas are reproduced out of a
different group of facts. Man's religious life of fellowship with
God in Christ is an orderly system of facts, of forces, and of ex
periences. The observation of these facts and forces yields an
explanation, or explanations, which are even more convincing
to the reason than any conclusion derived from the physical uni
verse. We know a cause producing a given set of results in our
soul's life. We know it as coming from without us, and yet
producing its effects in us. This answers to the cosmological
argument. Again, this cause operating in us works ever toward
a moral end, our transformation into Christ's image. The process
of the gradual transformation is a matter of daily consciousness
in our experience. This answers to the teleological argument.
Again, man's need of a God who is infinite to satisfy the needs of
his personal life, along with his discovery of such a God in

Christian and Other Forms of Knowledge

Christ, gathers up the essential element of the anthropological
argument. In this case, however, it is not an inference from man
to a cause capable of producing men. It is rather man rinding in
his own nature and need a reflection of God's image in himself.
When he comes to a knowledge of God in Christ, it is direct
knowledge of God entering his human personality in redemptive
power. So also the ontological proof has its analogue in man's
religious craving for God, his intuition of the infinite and Holy
One upon whom he depends and for whom he was made. God is
thus seen to be not only a necessity for reason, but also for
the self-realization of man in redemption and blessedness.

2. There can be no higher proofs of God's existence than
these we have given, because they exhaust all spheres of reality
which are known to us, the world without and the world within
man, and God himself. We infer God from nature. We infer
God from man's nature as moral and spiritual and personal.
But above all, we know God within us as a living redemptive
reality. In the first and second instances we deal with logical
inference. In the third we deal with a vital fact.

3. It is always possible for the objector to bring the charge of
subjectivism against any proof of God's existence. Man finds
what he looks for because he wants to find it, not because it is
there. It has been expressed thus : If many grains of wheat are
thrown promiscuously on a table, you can, by picking out some
grains and leaving others, produce any pattern or spell any word
you desire. You can make the grains spell God or atheism. So
you can manipulate the facts of nature and experience. But this
objection is more formidable in appearance than in reality. It
overlooks the other truth. You can just as easily manipulate the
grains of wheat so as to spoil what is already there. The man who
refuses to see is quite as subjective as the man who claims to see.
The Christian has had both forms of experience. Once he was
blind, now he sees. This is a form of certainty unknown to the
objector. The charge of subjectivism may be brought by any ob
jector to any conclusion in any sphere. All the data which we
handle in our reasonings must pass through the human mold,

[135]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Our intellect impresses its forms upon all facts, just as a dipper
shapes the water it takes out of the bucket. But all truth be
comes truth only on the supposition that our reason gives us
reliable information. The fact that reason is satisfied and a re
ligious need is met surely cannot be justly held to discredit it.
It is rather the strongest of proofs that it is true. And when a
form of experience like the Christian's, which belongs to a great
order of experience running through nearly two thousand years,
and embracing millions of other Christians, and which can be
scientifically analyzed and explained — when such an experience
is under consideration the charge of subjectivism loses all its
force. If the experience were merely individual and exceptional
there would be some point in the objection. But not otherwise.

136]

CHAPTER V
REVELATION

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

^\^O topic dealt with in theology calls for more careful atten-
4~t] tion to facts as contrasted with theories than revelation.
^* The subject has often been beclouded by the introduction
of needless problems. Abstract and a priori considerations have
often ruled the minds of thinkers here. Attention to the facts
of man's common religious life, and particularly to those presented
in the Christian revelation, will lead to the conclusions which
are called for by a system of Christian doctrine.

There are several facts fundamental to clearness of view
which may be named at this point. The first is that the very con
ception of religion contains at its heart the idea of revelation.
No definition of religion which omits the idea can stand in the
light of the facts. If the worshiper speaks to God, and God is
forever silent to the worshiper, we have only one side of religion.
Religion then becomes a meaningless make-believe. The second
fact is that the general religious life of mankind, with scarcely
any exception, exhibits belief in revelation as essential to religion.
The apparent exceptions are instances like Brahmanism and
Buddhism, which are speculative systems of thought rather than
religions. They are philosophies which mark the insufficiency
of the ethnic religions. They never have succeeded as philos
ophies. Always the religious impulse reasserts itself and the
gods swarm back into consciousness. The third fact is the unique
and unparalleled revelation which God has made in and through
Jesus Christ. With the revelation in Christ is to be taken the
revelation of God to Israel. The remarkable record of this revela
tion is presented to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments. The above considerations show how the doctrine of
revelation arises out of the facts of experience and of history.

•[137]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The chief problem is to interpret the facts. In the Scriptures
we find an interpretation of the facts. In brief, it is that God
revealed himself to Israel in the life and history of the people,
and that prophetic men have left us a record of the revelation,
and that God spoke supremely in and through Jesus Christ and
the apostles.

There can be no question that the biblical writers regarded
the revelations which came to them as supernatural. It is equally
clear that the revelation was mediated to them for the most part
through their experience and needs. God was present with his
people. He dwelt in them. He guided and cared for them, and
slowly made himself known to them.

I. OPPOSING VIEWS

Before developing the idea of a supernatural revelation further
we may note here a few of the opposing views, based on certain
philosophic assumptions and world-views.

1. The agnostic does not assert or deny the reality of God,
but he does deny that God can communicate with us. The abso
lute and infinite is too far removed from man to make himself
known to him. Of course we agree at once that we cannot know
God perfectly. But we deny strongly the radical theory of knowl
edge which asserts man's total incapacity for knowing God and
God's total incapacity for revealing himself to man. As we have
seen, man is constituted for God in every part of his being. In
his psychic, moral, scientific, philosophic, and religious life, he
seeks and progressively attains the truth. Agnosticism denies
all meaning to these facts. For him the world is not coherent, not
a unitary system. It is awry. The parts of being are out of
relation to each other. There is no food for man's soul-hunger.
All of this shows that the agnostic denial of the possibility of
revelation is grounded in an unscientific theory of knowledge. In
principle it is subversive of all thought in all spheres.

2. The pantheistic denial of the possibility of a supernatural
revelation is destructive of the true religious life in another way.

Revelation

It cancels the distinct reality of God as a personal being. It makes
of man simply a part of the infinite substance. He is as divine
as any other part of being. This view often expresses itself in the
form of an exaggerated doctrine of the divine immanence. God
is in all things and through all things, and, according to this view,
we need not think of him as also above all things. The reply is
that if God only speaks through the natural and human develop
ment of events, then he is absorbed and exhausted as it were in
his own universe.

The doctrine of the divine immanence, which teaches that God
is equally present everywhere, leaves no room for anything dis
tinctive in revelation. Everything is divine revelation on this
view. And this amounts virtually to the statement that nothing
is divine revelation. God never can distinguish himself to our con
sciousness from his finite creation if we try to explain his action
by means of an exclusive doctrine of the divine immanence. The
immanence of God is a great and important truth. The Scriptures
everywhere recognize it. But the transcendence of God is equally
important. God's transcendence is involved in his personality.
Personality in man is the chief element in his constitution as
bearing the image of God. Man's personality is developed on the
natural level through interaction with matter and human society.
On the spiritual level it is developed through interaction with
God. The unfolding of man's personal religious life then marks
his distinction from God at every point. This distinction is a
fundamental condition of all the religious life of man. Religion
means man in fellowship with God in personal terms. This
implies both the immanence and transcendence of God.

3. Another view which opposes a supernatural revelation takes
the form of what is commonly known as natural religion. Its
position is that the world about us, along with the human reason
and conscience, sufficiently reveals God to us. There is therefore
no need of a supernatural revelation. God's existence we infer
from the works of nature. Human freedom we know as being
conscious of moral obligation. Immortality we infer from our
own spirituality and the necessity of a future life to adjust the

['39]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

wrongs and inequalities of the present life. Thus reasons natural
religion.

There are various objections to the view. The first is that
it is a creed based on philosophic inferences rather than a re
ligion. A man might hold all the above items of belief and not
be a religious man at all. Religion is experience of fellowship
with God, not logical deductions from a particular set of objective
facts. The view is defective also in that it does not contain
enough knowledge of God to supply human need. Particularly
does it come short in its failure to show the redemptive love and
purpose of God. It is also glaringly deficient in its suggestions as
to the moral and spiritual power needed for the victorious re
ligious life. It has no suggestion for a renewal of man's nature
and the implanting of a love for holiness. The view of natural
religion is radically objectionable because it leaves God him
self forever silent. Mis works indeed reveal something of God,
the elementary truths of religion. In this natural religion is
right. But according to it God never becomes active for man's
enlightenment or salvation. Reason discovers what it can. But
God speaks no direct word to the most earnest seeker for truth.
The view is essentially dcistic. God made the universe and left
it running. In a general way he upholds it. He may, as it were,
keep it " spinning round his finger," but he never touches it.

These three types of objection to the idea of a supernatural
revelation will sufficiently indicate the prevailing views. None of
them can make good its claim. The whole subject must be car
ried over from the realm of speculation and a priori reasoning
into that of living experience. The Christian doctrine of revela
tion rests on a fact basis. It is not an abstract theory, but an
explanation of certain events in the spiritual history of the race.
The record of these events is found in the Christian Scriptures.

II. CONTENTS OF REVELATION

Christian revelation may be defined as containing the following
elements :

[ HO]

Revelation

1. It is primarily a revelation of God himself rather than of
truths about God. This is a cardinal fact. Revelation is in the
first instance God making himself known. Truths there are of
course. Doctrines inevitably shape themselves as the revelation
proceeds. But the primal fact is God entering human experience,
and man becoming conscious of his presence and power.

2. On the human side revelation is primarily a spiritual trans
action rather than mere illumination of the intellect. Revelation
is an event in the soul, an act of man's whole nature in response
to God's self-disclosure. Thus revelation is primarily salvation.
God makes himself known by saving acts to the individual or to
the redeemed society. It is easy to see how far removed this is
from the bare communication of truth to the mind. There were
indeed instances of the latter recorded in the Old Testament. But
the uniform law was revelation through the redeeming activity of
God.

There is a great principle of religious psychology involved in
this point. No bare truth about God can be a revelation of God
in the Christian sense. Revelation is " acquaintance with " and
not mere u knowledge about " God. Even the revelation in and
through Jesus Christ would never have been complete without
the group of redeemed men to whom it was made. What
Christ was as the Revealer of God could only be known through
his redeeming power in the disciples. And the world at large
could never have known that revelation unless the first group of
disciples had left a record of their own experiences. The revela
tion included necessarily therefore the objective self-disclosure
of God in the historical Jesus Christ; the subjective experience
of the redeeming power of Jesus in the regenerated society ; and
the permanent record of that power and that redemption given
us in the New Testament. The gospel thus became the possession
of the world at large and became an actual transforming power
organic in the human race.

3. Again, revelation was rooted in the life and needs of the
people. We should not think of it as a foreign thing grafted on
Israel. It was not unrelated to their life and needs, but sprang

[141]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

directly therefrom. The message through the prophets and
apostles met an actual situation. It did not spring out of the
natural life of the people as its producing cause. It was rather
the coming of God into their life to meet an urgent need.

4. Revelation on God's part evoked an active response on man's
part. This is a matter of vital importance. It is frequently
forgotten in discussions of the subject. Here, as elsewhere in the
religious life, man must conform to the universal law expressed
by the apostle Paul : We work out what God works in us.

There is nothing in the Bible to warrant the Roman Catholic
notion of implicit faith ; that is, the unintelligent acceptance on
sheer authority of the dogma of an ecclesiastical superior. There
is nothing in Scripture to warrant the idea of mechanically dic
tated truth to a merely passive intellect. Men sometimes think
of revelation as if the mind of the prophet were as a blank sheet
of paper on which the Holy Spirit inscribed God's message.
On the contrary, the human faculties were, as a rule, intensely
alive and active. The truth disclosed was molded in the forms
required by the personality, training, and circumstances of the
human organ of revelation.

Here again we have a principle of great significance. God's
revelation is designed to awaken and develop human personality.
Never is it intended to crush or weaken it. Observe the care
with which Jesus revealed himself to the early disciples. " Who
do men say that I am ? " was his question at one stage of his
public ministry. When Peter replied correctly Jesus pronounced
him blessed. Jesus meant that men should discover him. The
revelation was not complete until they responded actively. His
parables were framed expressly to awaken thought about him.
In a sense then God's revelations can only become revelations
when they become our discoveries.

III. THE RECORD OF REVELATION

We have in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments the
record of God's revelation of himself to his people. There are

[142]

Revelation

two ways of approaching the question of the authoritativeness
of the Scriptures. One puts much emphasis on the processes,
the other upon the results, of inspiration. The former seeks to
enter the realm of religious psychology and to show how God's
Spirit imparted the light necessary for the inspiration of the
biblical writers. The latter is more practical and dwells rather
upon the outcome of the process in the Bible as we have it.

1. The psychological method seeks to distinguish between
revelation, illumination, and inspiration. Revelation is the super
natural communication of truth to the human messenger. Illumi
nation is the spiritual insight imparted by God's Spirit, enabling
the human mind to grasp the meaning of the truth. Inspiration
is the divine guidance and control of the messenger in delivering
or recording the message. These distinctions, v/hen properly
understood, are justified. The revelation in and through Christ
was given before the illumination required for its understanding
in the minds of the early disciples. Again, illumination is be
stowed by the Holy Spirit upon all obedient children of God.
Spiritual insight, without revelation and inspiration in the strict
sense, is the common possession of believers. It would be a
mistake, however, to hold these distinctions in too radical a
manner. They are useful for thought. But the elements sepa
rated in thought are not always separate in fact. Revelation is
usually accompanied by illumination. Inspiration also is most
frequently attended by revelation and illumination.

2. As a result of the psychological method certain theories of
inspiration have arisen. In brief outline they are as follows:
The naturalistic theory of inspiration holds that as God dwells
in all men, all are inspired. The degree of inspiration de
pends upon their natural capacity, mental and spiritual. It is
obvious that this is not the biblical doctrine of inspiration. An
other theory is that inspiration is illumination rather than in
fallible guidance into truth. It thus leaves room for many and
varying degrees of truth and of error in the outcome. Another
is called the plenary verbal theory of inspiration. It holds that
every word of Scripture was selected by the Holy Spirit and

[143]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

dictated to the writer. One form of the theory of plenary in
spiration is called the theory of dynamical inspiration. This main
tains that the thought rather than the language was inspired,
and that men were enabled to declare truth unmixed with error,
but permitted to convey their ideas in forms of their own selection.

a. With regard to these theories it may be remarked that none
of them is an exhaustive or adequate expression of the teaching
of Scripture. Most of them no doubt contain elements of truth,
but they attempt the impossible. It is not within our power to
analyze fully the process by which God's Spirit operates upon
the human mind in providing for us a record of his redemptive
dealings with men. There was great variety in the circumstances
of the biblical writers, and great diversity in their gifts and
capacities and in the forms employed for setting forth the truths
revealed. In some cases inspiration led to the selection merely of
historical material, as in the historical books of the Old Testament.
In others the facts were given and inspiration led to their inter
pretation. In the case of Luke, as he informs its, careful research
was necessary. Inspiration did not exempt him from the ordinary
task of the diligent historian.

b. Most of the psychological theories of inspiration start from
a false premise. They begin by asking how God could have
given to us a reliable guide for our religious life, and they pro
ceed to answer the question by a theory which seems to meet
the end in view. They proceed thus : If the Bible is God's word
to us, then it must have been given in such and such a manner.
The true method, on the contrary, is to study the Bible inductively
in order to learn what its claims are and what success it has had
in meeting those claims, in the experience of Christians of the
past and present. This is the experiential and practical method
of approaching the doctrine of inspiration. It is much more
concerned with the result than it is with the process of inspira
tion. What is the Bible, and what place does it hold in our re
ligious life to-day? How does it meet the religious needs of
men? This is the practical question. The Bible itself contains
the best answer.

[144]

Revelation

IV. DISTINGUISHING MARKS OF THE BIBLICAL REVELATION

In harmony with what has just been said we proceed next to
name some of the leading characteristics of the Scriptures. These
are given as a general survey of the contents of the Bible itself.

1. The biblical revelation is historical and experiential. This
means that individuals in Israel and the people of Israel lived in
conscious relations with Jehovah. It means also that Jehovah
made himself known to them in their individual and national his
tory. Nothing stands out in clearer light as to the writers of
the Old Testament than their consciousness of God. This appears
in many passages. Many of the psalms are little more than
fervid narrations of God's dealings with Israel. (See Deut. 26 :
16; 28 : i ; Ps. 107 : iff. ; 44 : iff.; 105 : iff.) The prophets
lived in the divine presence. The consciousness of God with them
was a part of their own self-consciousness. It was their uniform
claim that Jehovah spoke in and through them. (See Jer. 1:4;
Ezek. 2:1; Hosea i : i ; Micah I : i ; Hag. i : i.) The same
fact appears in the New Testament, but under changed conditions.
Jesus declares the truth about God, and those who receive the
revelation record it in our New Testament books. The promise
to them is that they shall be guided into truth by the Holy Spirit.
(John 16 : 13.)

2. The biblical revelation is regenerative and morally trans
forming. In the early stages of the revelation the ethical qual
ities of the people do not shine with the same radiance as in the
later. But it is clear that one chief object of the revelation is
moral transformation. To think of the sheer communication
of supernatural truth as the most important object or result of
revelation is to misconceive it. There is a growth from immature
forms of morality in the early parts of the Old Testament to a
perfected morality in the New Testament which presents a
striking contrast between the outward and inward, the temporary
and permanent, the special and the universal, the provisional and
the final. The Sermon on the Mount alone is abundant proof of
this statement. (Matt. 5 to 7.)

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

3. The biblical revelation is genetic. This means that the parts
are vitally related to each other. The revelation proceeds like
the unfolding of an inner life principle: We do not find the
prophets warring with each other in sentiment and aim. Each
takes up the thread of teaching at the point where his predecessors
left it off. They build on each other. This is the fundamental
law of all progress. The traditionalist worships the ancient forms
and will have no change. The radical is so intolerant of the old
that he would destroy it. The prophets and apostles avoided
both errors. The continuity of the teaching of the Bible is one
of its most marked qualities.

4. Another outstanding characteristic of the revelation of the
Bible is that it is gradual and progressive. The recognition of this
fact is one of the most important results of the modern critical
study of the Bible. It is an easy task to show that every leading
idea of the biblical revelation undergoes change in the sense of
growth and expansion in the course of the history. The con
ception of Jehovah himself is first presented with emphasis on the
attribute of power. He is thought of chiefly in his relations with
Israel. Slowly the idea is transformed into the splendid concep
tion of Isaiah in which Jehovah is portrayed as infinite in all his
attributes, and yet full of condescension, grace, and love. In the
New Testament we have the crowning revelation of God as the
infinite Father who sends his Son to redeem the world.

The principle of a gradual and progressive revelation sheds
light on several problems which may be mentioned here.

a. It supplies the key for the interpretation of certain psalms
and other Old Testament passages in which God seems to be
represented as a vindictive being, rejoicing in his power to inflict
suffering even upon the innocent along with the guilty. (See Ps.
X37 : 9; IO9 : 5~2°-) The Old Testament law of divorce is not
the same as that of the New Testament. Certain offenses which
civilization no longer visits with penalties so severe were pun
ishable in Israel by death. Now all these facts can be under
stood if we think of the Bible as the record of God's self-
disclosure to a people incapable of more rapid development.

Revelation

It is impossible to reconcile them with any theory of inspiration
which regards all parts of the Bible as equally absolute and
final. Jesus expressly rejected the view. A large part of Paul's
writings are opposed to it. The book of Hebrews is an elaborate
and formal argument to show that the Old Testament revelation
was preparatory rather than final.

All this is but illustrative of the divine pedagogy in the train
ing of a race. There was no moral and spiritual method of forc
ing the process of growth. It required free action on man's
part. Men must learn obedience. Often it required severe dis
cipline to teach it. But until they could grasp the truth it was
vain to proclaim it. And so Jehovah gently led his people and
bore with their infirmities and moral blindness until he could lead
them out into a larger moral and spiritual life.

b. The gradualness of revelation sheds light on the question
of delay in the great revelation in Christ. In the New Testa
ment Paul often employs the phrase " the fulness of times " in
relation to the coming of Christ into the world. There was a
ripening of the divine purpose. But there was also a maturing
of human receptiveness for Christ. If Christ had come at the
beginning of the revelation, the moral and spiritual preparation
necessary on the part of the people would have been wanting.
No doubt he came as soon as the incarnation could prove effective
for the end in view. The idea of epochs and dispensations in
God's dealing with men is based on a profound law of man's
spiritual development. It has to be kept in mind by all who would
understand the revelation in Christ.

c. The gradualness of revelation sheds light on the principle
of development, in so far as that principle is applicable to the
Scriptures. Many moderns have sought to apply to the Old Tes
tament history a theory of natural development which eliminates
entirely the need for any supernatural presence or power of God.
As we have seen, there is beyond question a principle of growth
and development in revelation. Indeed, there is no body of
religious literature on earth which compares with the Scriptures
in steady progress from lower to higher forms. But this is not

[1471

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

evidence against, but rather in favor of the divine guidance. It
is an impressive mark of divine wisdom. Here were writers of
varied gifts, separated by long intervals of time, surrounded
often by unbelief and deadly hostility, speaking out their mes
sages often at fearful cost in pain and suffering. Sometimes they
spoke under protest, as in the case of Jeremiah, and yet urged
on by an inward voice they could not resist. The result is a body
of literature covering a period of a thousand years, possessing
a marvelous unity along with a marvelous progress.

We may indicate the underlying principle of progress by the
following statements: at each stage there was a communication
of life and truth needed for that stage; the revelation contained
in itself the principle for development to the next higher stage;
the advanced stage in turn conserved the principle of the pre
ceding stage and contained the germ which should expand into
the next higher; the lines of development all converged toward
fulfilment in Jesus Christ, the crowning revelation.

It is unnecessary to trace here the various lines of development
in the progressive revelation. It is sufficient to point out that it is
ethical, containing a deepening appreciation of the higher moral
ideals ; that along with this there is a marked development of the
consciousness of sin and guilt; that this deepening sin-conscious
ness is attended by a growth in the sense of need for atonement ;
that the need for atonement is coupled in a marvelous manner
with an enriched conception of God's grace ; that the concep
tion of God himself is slowly rounded out into that of a Being
whose purposes include all mankind; that the course of the his
tory slowly converges upon the One who in his Person and
work is to transform the temporal kingdom into a spiritual and
universal one for the redemption of mankind. These facts are
" writ large " on the pages of Scripture.

One point needs to be added as to the gradualness of revelation.
By this it is not meant that revelation was continuous and unin
terrupted throughout the Old Testament period. There were
great deliverances and deeds of Jehovah at special periods and
great crises of Israel's history. The deliverance from Egyptian

Revelation

bondage and the great events which followed was one of these.
To this period the people ever looked back with gratitude. In
the period of the Exile there was a great revival of the prophetic
inspiration and power. The miracles of Jesus, and especially
his resurrection, were the most notable of all God's great acts of
deliverance. The special deed and the special redemptive mes
sage were outstanding features of a revelation which, regarded
in its whole course and extent, was also progressive and gradual.
Both aspects of the truth should be held in mind.

5. Closely connected with the idea of this gradual and pro
gressive revelation is that it is also unitary and purposive. All
that we have just said as to the gradualness indicates as well the
unity and purposiveness of God's revelation. It is only necessary
to add a few points to bring the latter into greater clearness.
There are at least five things which serve this end. First, the
purpose of God is seen in his selection of one nation from among
many. Through that nation he reaches all nations with his sav
ing truth. Secondly, his purpose appears in the geographical posi
tion of Israel, the very center of the inhabited world of that age.
Thus, like leaven in a lump, the life of Israel could slowly trans
form the rest of the world. Thirdly, his purpose appears in the
divine guidance which led to the permanent record in writing of
God's dealings with his chosen people. None of the prophets
knew the place their words would hold in the literature of the
race. Fourthly, God's purpose is seen in the supreme role which
his recorded revelation has played in the actual history of the
world. We note in the fifth place that the same purposive
action of God is seen in the providential steps which led to the
formation of the canon of Scripture. This arose not as an ex
pression of ecclesiastical authority; it was the result of a vital
inner process of selection. The divinity of the contents of the
Scripture books, not church decrees, led to their incorporation
in one body of literature.

6. The biblical revelation is congruous with man's general
intellectual and religious life. The Bible, correctly understood,
interferes in no way with man's search for truth in the realm

r MQ i

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of science, philosophy, and other departments of intellectual effort.
The Bible is not a book of science nor of philosophy. It is a book
of religion. It only asks that science and philosophy recognize
the facts of man's religious life for which it stands.

The biblical revelation does not require us to hold that no
truths about God were known to the nations other than Israel.
Many of the fundamental ideas of the Bible are seen in imper
fect or distorted form in the general religious life of mankind.
This does not discredit, but confirms the truth of the biblical
revelation. These religious ideas were God's means of preparing
men for the revelation in Christ. Men were enfeebled and blinded
by sin. Yet the religious impulse never died in them. They
sought God. The various systems are the result of their seeking.
The special revelation in Christ is God's clear answer to them.

7. The biblical revelation is supernatural. The Old Testament
prophets constantly claimed divine authority for their words.
This reference of their messages to God or God's Spirit is so
uniform, so unvarying, that it has all the impressiveness of a
phenomenon and a law. (Num. n : 23; 20 : 24; Isa. 55 : n;
66 : 2; Jer. i : 12; 4 : 27; 23 : 28-30; Matt. 24 : 35; John 5 :
24; 2 Tim. 3 : 16.)

How shall we account for it? Were these men self-deceived?
Were they afflicted with diseased minds? It is impossible to be
lieve this in the light of their lofty and sane moral teachings and
of their commanding position in the world to-day.

If men object that such revelations are psychologically impos
sible, we may reply by pointing to the influence of our human
mind and will upon other minds and wills. Mysterious? Yes.
But nothing is more mysterious than the action of our own wills.
The prophets knew as we know what came from without to
them. Their whole personal and religious life was developed in
reaction upon God and his will, revealed in and to them. Their
own self-consciousness was the proof of their God-consciousness.
Their own wills and God's will interacted without confusion of
the one with the other, without absorption of their will in God's,
or loss of their individuality in the infinite substance. Certainly

[150]

Revelation

these are the conclusions thrust upon us as we read what these
men say to us in their written words. We cannot analyze or
define accurately all the processes. The details elude us. But the
great outstanding fact is beyond dispute if we are to credit what
these men tell us about their own experiences.

Jesus Christ clearly recognized the unique and permanent value
of the revelation of God through the Old Testament writings.
(Matt. 21 : 42; 22 : 29; Mark 14 : 49; Luke 24 : 27; John
5 : 39.) They spoke of him. With Jesus it was a commonplace
thought that the Old Testament was God's self-revelation.

The apostles also claimed divine guidance for their messages.
They were the witnesses to the facts of the life of Jesus. They
were the interpreters of Christ to us. Jesus promised the Holy
Spirit to them for future guidance.

The apostle Paul is especially clear in his statements regarding
the influence of God's Spirit in his work, (i Cor. 2 : 4, 5, 10-16.)
In one notable passage he states generally the doctrine of inspira
tion : " Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in right
eousness ; that the man of God may be complete, furnished com
pletely unto every good work " (2 Tim. 3 : 16).

However we may translate these words, the great outstanding
fact remains that the apostle regarded the Scriptures as derived
from men who were guided by the Holy Spirit of God.

A general opposition to everything supernatural on the part
of many of course forbids the idea of anything supernatural or
special in the biblical revelation. For the present it need only
be replied that the facts as we know them do not warrant an
impersonal conception of being as a whole; that personality is
the supreme fact ; and that personality cannot be confined within
the chain of physical law ; and that if the universe is ultimately
personal, and if God is a God of grace and love, there can be no
possible objection on theoretical grounds to the idea of a super
natural revelation.

8. The biblical revelation is sufficient, certain, and authorita
tive for all religious ends. This means that the Bible meets all the

[151]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

requirements of the religious life of man as the inspired literary
record of the self -revelation of God.

Here we note one or two errors which are to be avoided.
First, we must not imagine that the biblical revelation removes
the necessity for the direct action of God's Spirit upon men.
Man's approach to God is direct. Spirit with Spirit can meet.
It is the presence of God's Spirit in men that enables them
to understand, appreciate, and use the Scriptures aright. The
Bible is not statutory. It is not of the nature of a legal code.
It is a book of life principles. To the regenerate man the most
convincing of all the evidences of the divine origin of the Bible
is the identity of his own spiritual life with that revealed in the
Bible. The Christian finds a saving gospel there. The Bible is
the collection of writings which explains to him the life he has
found in Christ. He thus sustains a relation to the Bible which
is independent of all theories pertaining to its literary structure.

Another error to be avoided is the application of false stand
ards to the Scriptures. This mistake has often been made. Men
have applied the scientific or philosophic test to the Bible and have
rejected it because it does not at all points square with their own
conclusions. This is the cardinal error of some modern men in
their approach to the Bible. Modern scientific methods are of
recent origin. If the biblical writers had been divinely taught the
truths of modern science and had announced them prematurely,
the result would have been to discredit rather than to commend
their messages. Suppose, for example, that in the Nineteenth
Psalm, which has much to say about the heavenly bodies, the
writer had announced the modern scientific formulation of the
law of gravitation : Bodies attract each other directly as the mass
and inversely as the square of the distance. What would have
been the result? The mere supposition shows how completely
foreign to the biblical writers was this modern scientific point
of view. What is the infallibility of the Bible? How is it to be
tested? Dr. Marcus Dods says:1 "The whole matter hinges
here. What is the infallibility we claim for the Bible? Is it

1 " The Bible: Its Origin and Nature," pp. 151, 152.

[152]

Revelation

infallibility in grammar, in style, . . in science, or what? Its
infallibility must be determined by its purpose. If you say that
your watch is infallible, you mean, as a timepiece; not that it
has a flawless case, not that it will tell you the day of the month,
or predict to-morrow's weather. The navigator finds his chart in
fallible as a guide to lighthouses, and shallows, and sunken rocks,
but useless to give him the time of day or to inform him of the
products and races of the lands he is bound for. A guide may in
fallibly lead you over a difficult and not easily found pass, although
he is ignorant of any language but his own and knows little that
happens beyond his own mountains."

It is strange indeed how often the friends and foes of the Bible
have created false issues about it. We must let the Bible tell its
own story and not hold it to false standards and tests. It shows us
God's presence among his people using men of varying capacities,
who were guided in the selection of a great variety of means for
conveying the truth ; adapting the means to the end in view and
the need to be supplied ; employing always the language of com
mon life ; sometimes using forms of pictorial representation suit
able for a child-race; at others rising to the lofty eloquence of
Isaiah and the sublime conceptions of a God infinite in majesty,
power, grace, and truth; the whole culminating in the matchless
revelation of God in Christ. The Bible then is a book of religion,
not of science. As such it has proved hTtherto and will continue
to prove in the future, man's sufficient and authoritative guide.

In conclusion, then, the Bible remains in its place of authority
for Christians. It is a vital and living authority, and not a
mechanical and ecclesiastical one. It is our authoritative source
of information as to the historical revelation of God in Christ. It
is regulative of Christian experience and Christian doctrine. It
is the instrument of the Holy Spirit in his regenerative and sancti
fying influences. As regulative and authoritative it saves us from
subjectivism on the one hand and from a bare rationalism on the
other. It holds us to the great saving deeds of God in Jesus
Christ, the Redeemer and Lord. It is final for us in all the
matters of our Christian faith and practice.

CHAPTER VI
THE SUPREME REVELATION : JESUS CHRIST

I. CHRIST THE KEY TO SCRIPTURE

ESUS CHRIST is the key to the interpretation of Scripture.
He is the keystone in this vast arch of spiritual truth. One
of the most conspicuous features in the Old Testament
literature is its Messianic element. In many and varied forms the
rich contents of the Messianic hope are expressed. Interpreters
may attempt too much in the process of tracing out details of
prophecy and fulfilment. But the great salient fact remains. The
prophets expected a Deliverer, a great Leader, a holy kingdom, a
reign of a righteous King, God's presence among men, a world
transformed under the power of God's chosen One.

It follows, then, that the Gospels are for us central in our ap
proach to the Bible. The Old Testament in all its lines of de
velopment culminates in Jesus Christ. He is the great historical
fact and corner-stone of Christianity. The Epistles of the New
Testament are devoted to the task of interpreting him.

We come into very close relations with the first Christians when
we consider the question' who and what was Jesus of Nazareth.
The modern regenerate man knows in himself the working of a
power which calls for explanation. The New Testament Chris
tians faced the same question. These men who saw and heard
Jesus undertake to tell us in a conscious and deliberate way their
own impressions of his power and of his person. Without any
knowledge whatever of modern scientific methods these men
adopt a strictly scientific spirit in their approach to the subject.
There is no theory, no speculation, no abstract reasoning. They
begin with the words and deeds of Jesus. They follow him
through his life and the events which followed. They consider
him in relation to the facts of their own redeemed and morally
transformed life, and in relation to the Christian movement.

[154]

The Supreme Revelation : Jesus Christ

In this way arose the doctrine of the person of Jesus. There
are at least three general stages which may be noted in the New
Testament representations. First, that contained in the synoptic
Gospels; secondly, that found in the Book of Acts; thirdly, that
presented by Paul and John. The teachings of Hebrews, of
James, and of the book of Revelation might be specified further
as containing distinctive elements. But space forbids exhaustive
treatment, and the latter books do not contain material which af
fects the general result. Hence they are not given separate treat
ment here. It will be necessary to limit ourselves to the more
salient passages.

i. In the synoptic Gospels there are at least five facts which
stand forth clearly in the accounts of Jesus: First, his complete
humanity; secondly, his sense of Messianic calling; thirdly, his
sinlessness; fourthly, his unique relation to God; and fifthly, as
a consequence to the preceding, his unique relation to man, to
nature, and to history.

(1) The humanity of Jesus is manifest in all the synoptic
records. Luke declares that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature
and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2 : 52.) He suffered
from hunger (Matt. 4:2), weariness, and pain (Matt. 26 : 38),
and finally death. He was tempted not only at the beginning
(Matt. 4 : i-n), but throughout his ministry. (Luke 22 : 28.)
He prayed. (Matt. 14 : 23.) He declared himself ignorant of
the " day and hour " concerning which disciples made inquiry.
(Mark 13 : 32.) He had a human body and a human soul.

(2) His sense of Messianic calling is another outstanding fact
in the synoptic account of Jesus. Criticism has expended much
labor to prove that this sense of vocation was wanting in Jesus,
but it is impossible to expunge it from the record without vio
lence. The name " Christ " designates Jesus as Messiah or
anointed of God. At his baptism the approving voice of God the
Father must have deepened in him this conviction. (Matt. 3 : 17.)
The temptation in the wilderness can only be explained on the
basis of a deep-seated conviction of Messianic vocation on the
part of Jesus. (Matt. 4 : iff.) The incident of the confession

[ 155 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of Peter at Csesarea Philippi brings it into great prominence.
(Mark 8 : 27-30.) Many incidents in the life of Christ point
in the same direction, such as his message to John the Baptist in
prison (Matt, n : 2ff.), his confession before the high priest
(Matt. 26 : 64), and other incidents. There is not space to dis
cuss the self-designation of Jesus as Son of Man. It was prob
ably based on the passage in Daniel 7 : 13, and was intended by
Jesus as a Messianic title pointing to his universal relations to
men. It involved the idea of suffering and future glory which
would come to Jesus in his Messianic vocation.

The reserve of Jesus in announcing his Messiahship in the early
stages of his ministry was probably owing to the danger of
abruptly thrusting the idea of his own spiritual kingdom upon
a people looking for a kingdom of temporal power, and to the
desire that the disciples might grow spiritually into an appre
ciation of him and his work. He desired that his revelation might
become their discovery.

(3) The sinlessness of Jesus. The formal claim to sinlessness
did not constitute a leading element in the teaching of Jesus. But
it is clearly implied in all his words and actions. Alleged weak
nesses and sins, such as his anger at the hypocrisy of the Phar
isees, are virtues, not faults. One passage seems to imply a denial
of sinlessness. In Mark 10 : 18 Jesus declares that " none is
good save one, even God." But here Jesus is thinking of good
ness in its absolute or eternal form as it exists in God. The
goodness of Jesus was a human goodness achieved through
temptation and struggle. He learned obedience. (Heb. 4 : 15;
5:8.) He was made perfect through sufferings. But his im
perfection was not that of sin, but rather of an unfolding life.
If this be not true, how can we explain the absence of confession
of sin ? Why is it that we search in vain for any trace of penitence
in his recorded words and deeds? How can we explain his un
clouded and unbroken fellowship with God ?

In John's Gospel we have a saying which denies sinfulness:
"Which of you convicteth me of sin?" (John 8 : 46.) In nu
merous other passages in the Epistles we find the same view

The Supreme Revelation: Jesus Christ

expressed, (i Peter 2 : 21; Phil. 2 : 7, 8; i John 3:5; Heb.
7 : 26.)

His baptism was not a confession of sin, but a self-dedication
to righteousness and to his Messianic vocation.

(4) Jesus sustained a unique relation to God. Central in his
consciousness was the relation to the Father. He never addresses
God as " our Father." He frequently says, " My Father " (Matt.
7 : 21 ; 10 : 32; 12 : 50). He never refers to himself as " a son
of God," but he often refers to himself as " the Son." The most
notable passage is that in Matthew 1 1 : 27 : " All things are de
livered unto me of my Father ; neither doth any know the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal
him." 1 This passage is one of the most remarkable found any
where in the Gospels. It declares that Jesus sustains to the
Father an extraordinary relation; possesses unparalleled knowl
edge of the Father; and performs a unique function in revealing
the Father. He correlates his own knowledge of God with God's
knowledge of him. He claims to possess " all things " from the
Father. His own consciousness dwells completely in the divine
consciousness. The center of his own will coincides with the
center of God's will. Doctor Denney remarks 2 on this passage :
;' The sentence as a whole tells us plainly that Jesus is both to
God and man what no other can be." Dr. H. R. Mackintosh
adds the following 3 as to the special sonship here defined : " Look
ing at both Jesus' own mind and at Christian experience, there is
no reason why we should not use the word metaphysical to denote
this special Sonship, not as though metaphysical stood in contrast
with ethical, but to mark the circumstance that this Sonship is
part of the ultimate realities of being."

(5) Jesus Christ sustains a unique relation to man, to nature,
and to history. In the synoptic Gospels there is a remarkable
unity in the portrait of Jesus as that portrait stands related

1 Critical objections to this passage in its present form are not supported by any
strong evidence. They are objections based on the assumption that the passage par
takes too much of a Johannine character. But this is a departure from scientific criti
cism and the adoption of a priori considerations.

2" Jesus and the Gospel," p. 272.

3 " The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ," p. 28.

[157]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

to man, nature, and history. We give here a bare summary
merely. We have already noted his own sinlessness. We add
here that he forgives sin in others and thus exercises a divine
prerogative. (Mark 2 : 6, 7, 10-12.) His blood was shed for
remission of sins. (Matt. 26 : 28) ; and he declared after his
resurrection that repentance and remission of sins would be
preached in his name. (Luke 24 : 47.) In his relations to Moses
and the law, Jesus declares that he came to fulfil (i. e., complete)
the law. (Matt. 5 : 17.) He is greater than the temple (Matt.
12 : 6) ; he is Lord of the sabbath (Matt. 12 : 8) ; he is the King
who founds and rules in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5 to 7;
Luke 22 : 29, 30; 19 : 12.) Jesus controlled the forces of
nature, as witness the stilling of the tempest and other miracles.
Future events were under his control. In the twenty-fourth and
twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew we have an extended prophecy
of his future relations to mankind. He is to be the judge on the
throne before whom all nations are to be gathered.

The preceding is by no means an exhaustive statement. It is
rather a bare suggestion of the salient features. But they are
sufficient to show how high above the level of ordinary men was
this man. He assumes a central place in man's religious life.
He is not only our religious example, but also our religious object.
In the Son we find the Father. His resurrection and ascension
complete the picture. His gift of the Holy Spirit is the true
explanation of his continued presence and power among men.

2. In the book of Acts, the teachings as to the person of Christ
mark an advance over those in the synoptic Gospels in some re
spects. This is due to the changed situation. Jesus has been
raised from the dead and has ascended to the right hand of the
Father. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit has followed. A
new era in the experience of the disciples has dawned. New
powers work in and through them.

One passage contains a brief summary of the teaching in Acts.
They are the words of Peter, " God hath made him both Lord
and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts 2 : 36). Two
points require emphasis. First, Jesus the crucified is the Christ,

[158]

The Supreme Revelation: Jesus Christ

the anointed of God, the Messiah. It was he who was predicted
in the Old Testament. It is he who is to be received by faith as
the Redeemer sent from God. Secondly, this crucified Jesus,
who is the Christ of God, is also Lord. From every possible
point of view the work of Jesus as the anointed Lord is set forth
in the early chapters of the book of Acts. His miracles are
mentioned. (Acts 10 : 38.) His resurrection from the dead
is the supreme disclosure of his Messianic dignity and Lord
ship. (Acts 2 : 32; 10 : 41.) His gift of the Holy Spirit is
especially pointed out. (Acts I : 4, 5.) In his name alone is
salvation to be found. (Acts 4 : 12.) He is to return and re
store all things. (Acts 3 : 21.) He is to judge the world. (Acts

17 : 3i-)

3. The teachings of Paul occupy an important place in the New
Testament history as to Christ's person.

The Christology of Paul presents two important aspects. First,
that which is the immediate expression of the experience of sal
vation through Christ, and secondly, the theological statements
which interpret this experience.

Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is the key to his
theology. Jesus Christ there appeared to him in glory. There his
pharisaic creed collapsed and fell in ruins. There the new life
of faith began with Paul. No explanation of the marvelous
revolution of this man's life other than that contained in his own
simple narrative can adequately account for it.

The mystical or inward and experiential elements in Paul's life
run through all his Epistles. A man becomes a new creature
in Christ. (2 Cor. 5 : 17.) In him the Christian is created anew
unto good works. (Eph. 2 : 10.) "In Christ" is Paul's com
prehensive phrase employed in every possible connection to set
forth the believer's relation to his Lord.

The Holy Spirit dwells in the believer, and in the church he is
the bond of unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is the head of the body
in vital union with it through the Holy Spirit. (Col. I : 18;
Eph. 4:15.) A man who is in Christ is in the Spirit. He who
has the Spirit of Christ alone belongs to Christ. (Rom. 8:9.)

[159]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Paul does not identify Christ and the Spirit. But he clearly de
fines the sphere of the Spirit's activity by means of the phrase
"in Christ."

In the teachings of Paul there is not a great deal about the
earthly life of Jesus. Yet this element is not lacking. The resur
rection is especially emphasized. (Rom. 1:4.) Here the state
ment is not that Christ became, but was declared to be, the Son
of God by the resurrection. The resurrection of Christ, along
with the crucifixion, is the central fact in Paul's gospel. The
resurrection is the guaranty of the resurrection of believers. The
exalted Christ is Lord of the church, just as in Acts, (i Cor. 15 :
4, 12, 13, 20-28.) Jesus is the new spiritual head of the human
race, as Adam was the natural head. (Rom. 5 : 12; I Cor.
15 : 22.)

Paul's statements as to the deity of Christ are usually inci
dental to other teachings. But they are the more rather than less
impressive on this account. His hearers raised no question on
the point. It was the accepted view. What he says, however, is
entirely clear and convincing as to how he regarded Christ. In
Romans 9 : 5 the word " blessed " follows the word " God,'*
which would not be the case if it were simply a doxology. More
over, the word " is " would be out of place in a doxology. The
translation as Doctor Sanday gives it is, " of whom is the Christ
as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever."

In Hebrews i : 8 we have a quotation from the Old Testament
in which Christ is addressed as God. So by Paul in Titus 2 : 13
he is described as " our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."

In Philippians 2 : 6 begins an extended passage describing
Christ as preexisting in the form of God, as emptying himself
and taking the form of a servant, and being exalted and given a
name above every name.

A passage in Colossians, I : 15-17, expresses Christ's relations
to the universe in very explicit language. The following is as
serted: (a) Christ was the medium of creation: "through him
were all things created." (b) He was before all things, although
not as a creature ; " He is the first-born of the whole creation."

[160]

The Supreme Revelation : Jesus Christ

(c) He is the bond of unity of all things: " In him all things con
sist/' cohere, are held together, (d) He is the end and goal
of creation ; all things are " unto him."

In the benedictions of Paul's Epistles he uniformly combines
the name of Christ with the name of the Father and the Spirit,
clearly showing the dignity with which he invests him in his
ordinary thought.

We pass by many other notable passages in Paul's writings to
consider a few in those of John. In the prologue to the Gospel
Jesus is described as the eternal Word who was in the beginning,
i. e., possessed an eternal existence ; who was " with God," i. e.,
distinct from God ; who was the creator of all things : " All
things were made through him " ; who " was God " ; who was the
source of all life and all light to all created beings ; who became
incarnate and dwelt among us ; and who gave to those who
received him power (authority) to become sons of God.

Philo, the Jewish-Alexandrian philosopher, had developed a
speculative doctrine of the logos or divine reason. Some have
thought John borrowed his conception from Philo. Upon this
point two things may be said. First, if John was influenced by the
logos idea of philosophy, it was in harmony with the Christian
movement generally. Not to combat or destroy, but to trans
form and purify the partial and inadequate ideas of men was the
Christian method of dealing with these ideas. Secondly, a com
parison of John's Logos with that of Philo presents a marked
contrast. In Philo the idea is abstract, speculative, variable
in meaning, and bound up with the intellectual attempt to explain
the divine being. In John the idea is very definite, ethical, and
inspired by the historic facts as to Jesus, and bound up with
the redemptive aim of the gospel.

The whole of John's Gospel is an account of the manifestation
of the divine Son of God, and the results of that manifestation
among men. John is at once historian and interpreter. In a
great variety of passages his teaching as to Christ appears. In
5 : 23 the Son receives equal honor with the Father. In 5 :
27-29 authority to judge man is given to the Son. In 6 : 62

[ 161 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the Son of man is described as ascending where he was before.
In 16 : 28 he is said to have " come out " from the Father.
In 17 : 5, in his intercessory prayer, Jesus prays to the Father
that he may be glorified with the glory which he had with the
Father before the world was made. In 20 : 28 Thomas addresses
Jesus as " my Lord and my God."

The above is by no means an exhaustive setting forth of the
New Testament doctrine of the Person of Christ. There is really
an embarrassment of riches in the material. It has seemed better
to select a limited number of typical and representative passages
than to attempt an exhaustive array of citations. That the deity
and preexistence of Christ are taught in the New Testament is
one of the most assured results of modern scientific exegesis.
Scholars who object to the supernatural of course reject the doc
trine as untrue. But as a matter of exegesis there are few who
question the conclusion we have reached.

We may now sum up briefly our review of the New Testament
teachings.

(1) We are impressed, in the synoptic records, with the fact
of the perfect humanity of Jesus. That humanity is seen in the
life of his body with its limitations, its hunger and thirst, its need
and dependence. It is seen in his mental growth in wisdom,
along with his physical growth in stature. It is seen in the reality
of the temptations he endured. These he overcame without sin,
but they were none the less real. His humanity is seen further
in his dependence on the Holy Spirit. It is seen finally in his
gradual achievement of his life purpose and mission under the
earthly conditions of time and space.

(2) In the synoptic Gospels we have also an account of the
human Jesus which presents him as possessing attributes and func
tions which are wholly extraordinary. His relations to God and
man are far above the level of ordinary men. He is in relation
to God the supreme and authoritative revelation. In relation
to man he is the religious object and medium of salvation.

(3) In the book of Acts we find the next stage in the develop
ment of the doctrine of Christ's Person. The new facts of the

The Supreme Revelation: Jesus Christ

resurrection and ascension, along with the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, called for a corresponding expression of Christ's
significance for the individual believer and for the church. That
expression we find in the declarations as to his crucified and
risen life, his Messiahship and Lordship, his exaltation at God's
right hand, his reign over his kingdom, and his expected return
in glory. The interpretation of his person kept pace with his
redeeming activity.

(4) In the writings of Paul and John we find the answer to the
questions which inevitably arose out of the redemptive power
of Christ in the experience of the first Christians. The mind
could not rest in the assertion that Jesus was Lord and Saviour.
Men were certain to ask what were the relations of this Lord
and Saviour to God himself. In the words of Paul and John
we find the following : a. There was an eternal relation between
the Father and the Son. There was mutual knowledge and
love, a mutual sharing in the divine life. b. The coming of
Christ into the world cannot be explained in terms of ordinary
evolution or natural causation. He did not arise out of time, but
entered into time relations for a divine end. c. The coming of
Christ into the world was more than the entrance of God into
the life of an ordinary man. It was a coming of God into the
world, not the rise of an extraordinary man into unique relations
with God. In Jesus Christ, God himself has come near to men
for their redemption. He lives and reigns in and through Jesus
Christ and in him fulfils his eternal purpose of love. d. This
relation of Christ to the fulfilment of God's eternal purpose
among men arises out of an eternal relation between the Father
and the Son, and is in harmony with the activity of the Son as
the outgoing principle of the divine nature. In virtue of this
relation the Son is the eternal medium of creation for the entire
universe, e. As a consequence of the redemptive activity of
the incarnate Son, a new interpretation of history is given.
In this interpretation all lines of development converge upon and
meet in Jesus Christ. Without him the course of the world can
not be understood. /. In his incarnate life he is sometimes

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

represented as being subordinate to the Father. This is due to
the human conditions and the life of obedience. It does not
detract from the reality of his deity.

II. JESUS CHRIST IN MODERN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE

The preceding view of Jesus in its main points has been cen
tral in the development of Christian life and doctrine. The great
creeds of Christendom are conclusive on this point. Recent
biblical scholarship is practically unanimous in its conclusion to
the same effect. But the experience which modern regenerate
men have of God in Christ is, for them, the most convincing
evidence.

It is well to recall at this point how the doctrine of Christ's
Person arose in the New Testament, and how it arises with us.
For one thing we do not frame our teaching as the result of a
priori reasoning or merely logical inference from objective facts.
Again, while the knowledge of Christ is mediated to us through
the New Testament, and while the New Testament is absolutely
indispensable for that knowledge, our faith in Christ is not to
be confounded with mere belief in a record of past events, how
ever convincing in itself. It is rather a view which results from
the redeeming activity of Christ in our experience. It is thus the
revelation of God in and through Christ, completed and made
effective for us by the redemption wrought for us and in us.
Since Christ works now as he wrought then, our own experi
ence becomes the Amen, as it were, of the New Testament ex
perience. What we have, then, on the one hand is not the bare
belief of a history of events which took place two thousand years
ago; nor, on the other hand, mere trust in our own subjective
experience apart from the historical records. It is the union of
the two forms of knowledge which completes our view of Christ.
Our construction of Christian doctrine rests on a fact basis
entirely: first and primarily, the facts of the New Testament
records, and secondly, our direct and immediate experience of
Christ as redeeming Lord.

[164]

The Supreme Revelation: Jesus Christ

Affirmations as to Christ in Experience

The following statements are necessary to express what Christ
is to the redeemed man. First, Christ is the revealer of God.
In him we have not indeed a disclosure as to the " substance "
of the divine nature. Ultimate realities of this kind are the
material o-f philosophic speculation. But in Jesus is made known
to us the ultimate reality of God as a moral and spiritual being.
In him God appears as righteous love. In him* God comes near
for our salvation. In him the grace and power of God are
manifested for our redemption. In him God takes the initiative
in seeking us. We are found and awakened by the gospel. But
our sin binds us. We know ourselves alienated in heart and
life from God. We are unable to redeem ourselves. We be
long to a kingdom of evil and are held captive. We need for
giveness and reconciliation. Through his atoning work Christ
brings God near in forgiving grace. We need moral and spiritual
transformation. Christ supplies the motives which lead to re
pentance and the new life. He also supplies through the in
dwelling Spirit the ideal for our inner life. " In Christ " is the
phrase which expresses the total meaning of the new life. He is
its source, its structural law, and its goal. We are, in other
words, regenerated and spiritually reconstituted in Jesus Christ.

Secondly, through Christ we now become identified with the
community of believers, the church. In it our social relations are
reconstituted in Christ. The goal and end of his activity and of
ours is the kingdom of God as it is summed up in the great
petition of the prayer he taught his disciples. Our wills become
identified with his.

Thirdly, we thus come to know Jesus Christ as Lord of the
kingdom, who guides and rules in it, and assumes a relation
to all secular history and to the powers of nature. It is im
possible that he should remain as a merely detached and spiritual
influence over men if his kingdom is a reality in the world.
The kingdom of evil is everywhere in evidence. The New Testa
ment Christians, as clearly seen in the book of Revelation,

[165]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

thought of Jesus as the Lord of all history gradually conquer
ing the hostile powers.

In the fourth place, Christ is the key to doctrine. If we know
objects by .what they do, by their activities, we are bound to
seek some satisfactory expression of the meaning of Jesus in all
his various relations. He works in us in our salvation that which
we recognize as a divine work. Hence we seek to know his rela
tions to God through definitions of his person. He emancipates
from sin. Hence out of experience arises a consciousness of sin
in relation to him. Thus we are led to formulate a doctrine of
man and his sin. We see in him the central movement of God's
purpose toward mankind. In this way we are led to the doc
trine of the eternal purpose or decrees of God. Christ's relations
to the ongoing of the world bring us to the doctrine of Providence.
His atoning work, which, along with his incarnation, constitutes
the basis of his redeeming activity, leads to the general doctrine
of salvation in its personal significance, its present ethical and
social expression, and in its outcome in the future life. All these
themes' will be developed in the following pages. In the next
chapter we discuss the deity of Jesus Christ. In the proofs" there
in presented we assume all the New Testament evidence of his
deity we have set forth in the present chapter.

166]

CHAPTER VII
THE DEITY OF JESUS CHRIST

I. A NECESSARY ARTICLE OF FAITH

the Christian believer the deity of Christ is a necessary
article o*f faith for the following reasons :

I. First, Jesus works in us a divine result. There is an
urgent necessity in Christian experience which cannot be ignored.
We must either formally repudiate Christ as Redeemer, or go on
and construe him as Redeemer. If he is not divine he has be
come a tremendous burden to Christianity. We must either
estimate him as no more than a great teacher or a great saint, or
else we must recognize in him God manifest in the flesh. For
the believer there can be no hesitation. In his redeeming work
in the Christian Jesus has done the following things: He has
made religion a free and autonomous activity of man's spirit in
direct relations with God. He has created a world of spiritual
realities for the redeemed man and holds him in stedfast com
munion with that world. He has revealed God as eternal Father,
whose fundamental character is righteous love which ever seeks
the lost. Jesus has also disclosed the inner being of God as a
sphere in which that love is active in the relations between the
eternal Father and the eternal Son.

2. This conviction that Christ is God, arising out of the re
deeming activity of Christ, contains implicitly a group of great
intuitions which lie at the heart of man's spiritual life. It con
tains the psychological intuition of the self and the not-self,
since it knows Another in the inner life of the soul. It contains
the ethical intuition of right and wrong because the Christian's
choice of Christ is the supreme choice of duty as such. It
contains the rational intuition in its twofold form as the per
ception of the distinction between truth and error, and of cause

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

and effect. Christ as the truth is for the believer distinguished
from all forms of error in the religious life. He is distinctly and
explicitly recognized as the cause producing the effects in the
morally transformed life. The several forms of the religious in
tuition are also involved in the experience of redemption through
Christ: such as our sense of dependence of the finite upon the
infinite; and also our sense of unrest and inner conflict which
finds relief and inner blessedness through the discovery of the
soul's true object.

3. The Christian believer holds the deity of Christ for the
further reason that his experience of God in Christ unifies and
completes many lines of evidence. Logic and philosophy draw
inferences from objective facts and arrive at rational belief in
God. In our redemption in Christ we find God as a fact. The
psychology of religion presents us the manifestations of the re
ligious consciousness of man. But it leaves unsolved the problem
of causes. Christ gives us the solution. Physical science deals
with causation in the sense of continuity or the conservation
of energy, and never rises above the chain of material forces.
Our experience of redemption in Christ is an experience of
free causation, in which through personal interaction Christ
draws us to himself and becomes a transforming power within.
The study of comparative religion introduces us to a great mass
of interesting data, but leaves unsolved the problem of the unity,
coherence, and finality of religion. Our experience in Christ
brings all religious values to a focus and unifies the religious
life and fulfils its highest ideals. The philosophy of religion
seeks to apply the rational process to the phenomena of religion,
but remains abstract and unstable until the thinker himself knows
experientially the religious object. Our experience in Christ puts
us in possession of the realities of the spiritual life and affords
the material out of which the philosophy of religion may con
struct its world-view.

4. Our belief in the deity of Christ arises also from the fact
that our redemption in him is not a merely individual experi
ence. It is also social and historical. 'A new spiritual order

[168]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

arose with the Christian movement. It has continued through
Christian history. The creeds of Christendom witness to the
<*reat fundamental facts. No one can understand Christian his-

o

tory without recognizing the centrality of Christ in the experi
ence of the individual and of the church. Many errors and
abuses have arisen. Many lapses from the lofty standards of
Christ's kingdom have occurred. But the great central truth
remains. Jesus Christ stands at the heart of the whole movement.

5. Through the historical connections of faith we are brought
back to the New Testament itself. There it is abundantly clear
that the risen Jesus is everywhere regarded as the Lord of the
church and the redeemer of man. His resurrection from the
dead was a great crisis and turning-point in his Messianic work.
It marked a new stage in the development of the divine purpose
of redemption in and through him. It was the gospel of the
risen Jesus that transformed the early disciples. By the side
of the resurrection we must place certain other great facts which
come to us through the synoptic records of his life and work.
One of these is the sinlessness of Jesus. Another is his Messianic
consciousness. Yet another is his self-disclosure as the religious
object and final judge and only mediator between God and man.
And finally, his unique relations as Son with the eternal Father.

On any critical view whatever as to the sources of the synoptic
Gospels which is tenable, the above facts stand forth in great
clearness. Certain forms of modern religious philosophy, in an
abstract and unhistorical and uncritical manner, seek to eliminate
some of the above elements. But if the Gospels are permitted to
speak at all, they speak the message as we have outlined it. The
message is clear and unequivocal.

II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

We may add to the above a number of general considerations
which will aid us in understanding the place of Christ in our
religious experience. It is inevitable that one who means so
much for the religious life of man should sustain a number of

[169]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

great relations also to God and the world. We mention some
of these.

i. The revelation of God in Christ makes known to us in most
impressive form the personality of God. God's self -disclosure
in the universe is progressive.

Interpret the world in terms of matter, and you get law. In
terpret the world in terms of intellect, and you get thought. In
terpret it in terms of power, and ultimately you get will. Inter
pret the world in terms of the conscience, and you get righteous
ness. Interpret it in terms of the heart, and you get love. Inter
pret the universe in terms of personality, and you get God.1 All
this means that in our study of the aspects of being we are led
by slow stages to the various attributes and qualities of God.
But we need a particular manifestation of God in order to our
understanding of the unity of all the qualities in him. If men
were ever to know God as a Person, it was needful that he reveal
himself as personal. No other phase of being, nor all the phases
combined, could impart this knowledge except by inference.
Nature presents a progressive series, from inorganic to organic;
from organic to sentient; from sentient to self-conscious; and
from self-conscious to moral and personal. Man is the crown
and goal. Every art and every science, all philosophy and all
civilization, are man's obedience to the instinct planted in him
which reaches out for the perfect, the ideal, the final truth, beauty,
and goodness. And these have no final meaning save as em
bodied in an infinite person.

Now we have in Jesus Christ God's response to this upward
movement of the human spirit. The descent of God into human
life by the incarnation in Christ is not an abrupt and violent
disturbance of the order of nature. In a real sense it is the
logical outcome of the course of nature. Man, who is nature's
crown, is burdened with a sense of need for help from above;
he yearns for knowledge, for moral power, for blessedness and
peace. Jesus Christ is made unto him, in response to these needs,
wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. The par-

1 Cf. Twing, " History of Higher Education," p. 463.

The Deity of Jesus Christ

tial aspects of personality below man and its imperfect form in
man are thus brought to unity and complete realization in Christ.
" In him," as Paul says, " dwelt " not a fragment or part, but
"all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

2. Again, the revelation of God in Christ is the key to the
higher continuity needed to explain the world. Continuity in
the physical sense means the transformation of energy. Conse
quents in nature are explained solely in terms of antecedents.
Materialism has sought to level the universe down so that all else
save physical continuity is excluded. But this principle fails at
many crucial points. It has not yet explained how life can arise
from the non-living; or how consciousness and thought can
arise from the material forms of existence; and still less how
the moral and personal can so arise. Modern theistic and ideal
istic thought begins at the end of the progressive series instead
of the beginning. It finds the true continuity in the non-
material, non-spatial factors. Life, thought, will, purpose, love —
these are the true key to the process. In these are to be found
the true continuity. Jesus Christ, the revealer of God, declares
himself to be the way, the truth, and the life, and in him the
infinite Life, Thought, Will, Purpose, and Love, which are be
fore and in and through all things, come near to us. So that
Christian theology does not deny continuity, but seeks it in its
higher and only adequate form, and finds it in Jesus Christ the
revealer of God. What is explicit in him was implicit in all that
came before. The end reveals the beginning, not the beginning
the end.

3. Again, Jesus Christ reveals God by demonstrating what God
is in himself by outward act. God is holy love. Without this
he would not be God. A mere declaration to us that he is holy
love would not and could not be a revelation of God as holy
love. Love is incomplete save in act. Love is demonstrated only
in the deed which corresponds to the emotion. The incarnation
of God in Christ was the divine act which was necessary if
God was to give us a revelation of himself which contained the
essential elements of his being.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

4. The revelation of God in Christ was necessary for the com
pletion of the historical and objective factor in man's religious
life. Man is body as well as spirit. He is a creature of sense as
well as thought. His life in all its forms has an outward which
corresponds with an inward. God's self-disclosure to man's spirit
by inward energy was real, but inadequate. In the prophets
of Israel we have it in unique power. In philosophic thought the
Greeks were foremost among the nations of antiquity. But
prophetic inspiration, and Greek thought alike, failed to attain
finality. There was always a lack of permanency in the solu
tion and an expectation and need for more knowledge. This
result was due to the conditions of man's life as body and spirit,
inward and outward. It is because he lives in the temporal and
the eternal at one and the same time. It is his identity with and
transcendence above the temporal life which create for man the
need of an inward religion of the spirit and an outward embodi
ment of it. Jesus as the revelation of God brought the eternal
into the temporal. He made the conception of God practically
workable for man. He made of the God of faith a* winning,
gracious, yet holy and majestic being.

Man's free religious action was involved in this outward reve
lation in Christ. No doubt, as a matter of sheer power, God
could have coerced the human mind into holding conceptions of
himself which were true. He could have compelled a completion
of the prophetic message in human thought. But this would have
involved a continuous miracle. It would have tended to destroy
freedom in man. An objective gospel, a historical Christ, pre
sents, on the other hand, an objective revelation of God for
man to interpret and understand, an object for man to choose
or reject. This is directly opposed to the type of thought which
asserts that the historical element is unnecessary in Christianity.
Man's full development is dependent on the historical. This is
based both on what Christianity is in itself and what man is in
his physical and spiritual constitution. He is a citizen of time
and of eternity. He lives in the world of outward events and
the world of Spirit.

The Deity of Jesus Christ

5. The revelation of God in Christ was the completion of the
ideas of the world of man, of God, and of religion, (i) It
was the completion of the idea of the world. Here we need only
the data supplied by science as a basis for the statement. The
world arises gradually from the mechanical and merely physical,
through all gradations of life and feeling, to its apex in man.
Assume now that through all God progressively imparts himself
to his creation. In man we have the image of God, a finite like
ness of God's moral and spiritual nature. Finite man, however,
could not contain the " fulness of the Godhead." And this limita
tion was vastly intensified by human sin. If then the principle
of self-impartation guided all the preceding history, does not
the world, viewed as a whole, require the incarnation as its
crowning stage? God dwelt in Christ. Self-impartation is
now complete. The progressive series reaches its climax.

(2) This revelation completes also the idea of man. Humanity
could not become perfect as a group of detached individuals.
Man could not reflect the divine image in a non-social form of
existence. Again, he could not realize the divine end as a
merely natural man. He must become spiritual. The human
race must become a moral and spiritual unity in order to the
realization of God's purpose. Jesus Christ becomes the supreme
head of the race and establishes it in fellowship with God. He
called himself the " Son of man," not the son of Abraham. He
was Son of man because he was Son of God. He was con
scious of a relation to the race as a whole. The apostles dwell
upon the breaking down of the walls of partition between Jew
and Gentile. He is the head and his redeemed society the mem
bers. In Christ humanity is to become an organism living in fel
lowship with God and in mutual love and service. Christ's revela
tion, then, is a revelation of humanity.

(3) The revelation of Christ completes the idea of God. We
have already shown that it reveals God as a person and as holy
love. It remains to be said that in Christ we find the union of
the immanent and transcendent principles. God is immanent in
all nature below Christ. But his immanence is progressive as

[173]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the forms of being are progressive. Nowhere do we find a stage
capable of receiving the transcendent God until we reach Christ.
Even here we are not to conceive God quantitatively as if he
were an extended substance or physical magnitude. The entire
process is ethical and personal. It is a spiritual, not a physical,
reality we are to conceive. The self-communication of God as
spiritual does not limit or impoverish him. It does not sub
tract from his Godhead. It rather enhances it and illustrates the
resourcefulness of divine love and grace.

In this we are not to think of the incarnation as essential to the
divine nature itself by an inner compulsion or necessity of any
kind. It was a free act of God, an expression of his righteous
love. It was the completion of the great and wonderful act of
his love in laying the foundations of the universe. It was an act
consistent with his gracious activity in all the preceding history
of the universe.

(4) The revelation of God in Jesus completes for us the idea
of religion. The relation of Jesus to God was the realization in
time of the ideal fellowship between God and man. No element
can be conceived which would in any way add to the perfect
inner life of Jesus, in his communion with the Father. The con
sciousness of Jesus is the center from which all our reckonings
must be made.

We add to this a twofold caution. First, we must not make the
mistake of ignoring the sin-consciousness in man in our emphasis
upon the perfect communion of Jesus with God. What we must
do is to approach the sin-consciousness in man from the stand
point of the attitude of Jesus toward man's sin and his need.
Secondly, we must not make the mistake of conceiving of the
religious consciousness of Jesus as the exhaustive explanation of
his person. As we shall see, Jesus is not only our religious
example, our spiritual archetype; he is also our religious object.
God himself comes near to us in Jesus. This brings us face to
face with the doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ and his
significance for man's religious life.

As a summary of the preceding statements as to Christ's per-

[ 174 1

The Deity of Jesus Christ

son, we may recapitulate as follows: There are relations in the
Godhead. God is not a bare and isolated unity without relation
ships in his eternal life. His personality, like our own, is not
complete by itself, but in relations of love. Fatherhood and Son-
ship are immanent and essential relations in the Godhead. Crea
tion in its material, and in its spiritual-human phases, are ex
pressions of the immanent qualities in the divine nature. The
universe of matter, force, and motion is the groundwork, the
platform, or arena for the production and manifestation of the
sons of God. Man is nature's crown and bears the divine image.
The moral freedom of man, which is the core and center of that
image, was abused and sin entered. Christ the eternal Son came
and wrought that he might bring many sons to glory. The out
come of the cosmic struggle shall be the filial manifestation, the
redemption of men through Christ into the liberty of the glory of
the sons of God. This is the goal of nature as well as of history
and grace.

It thus appears that what God is in himself is learned not by
philosophic speculations, but by his own deed of redeeming
love. The central truth about nature and man is just an exten
sion of the central truth about God. That truth is righteous
love manifested in Fatherhood and Sonship. If we do not learn
what God is by his acts in time and space, then God remains for
us unknown. If righteous love be not essential in God before time,
it could not become essential for him in time. In that case right
eousness and love are relative terms. All that we see and know
in the finite world of time and space is without real significance
for the interpretation of God. In that case God retires into the
impenetrable depths of his own being, and blank agnosticism
remains. If, on the other hand, righteous love is the central fact
of the Godhead as expressed in Fatherhood and Sonship we
can in some measure understand the finite workings of God.
His is a love so vast that it requires the immeasurable reaches
of space and time for its adequate unfolding. It is so rich, so
deep, and so high, that nothing short of sonship can express it. It
is so precious and gives so much joy to God in its contemplation,

[175]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

that he pursues the task of training his sons with infinite patience
through the slow ages. Since the whole process is grounded in
his own essential nature, the bringing in of his eternal kingdom
of free and redeemed spirits becomes God's supreme and ab
sorbing task.

In view of these things it is clear why regenerate men who
know Christ as their Redeemer cling to him as the final and suf
ficient revelation of God. He is for them the religious ultimate.
They find all the values and ideals and satisfactions in him.
Just as the ear knows music, as the eye knows light, and as the
mind knows truth, so man in his whole spiritual nature knows
God as revealed to him in Christ. For believers in Christ, there
fore, the attack upon his deity is equivalent to an attack upon the
foundations of man's spiritual nature. It would be as easy to
uproot the foundations of all knowledge and of all religion as to
destroy their belief in his divine function and work. The ques
tion behind all our Christian experience is this: What is the
ultimate nature of human experience? In what form does it
find fulfilment? Is it feeling, or volition, or thought? Is it fel
lowship between man and God ? Is it religion ? Christian experi
ence says the latter. Human experience comes to itself in
Christian experience in the widest sense of a life of fellowship
with God. Christ is final for that experience because he mediates
that fellowship.

III. HUMAN AND DIVINE ELEMENTS IN CHRIST

As we have seen, Christ was truly and fully man, and he was
really God. The effort to express the meaning of his person in
terms of the human and divine has been an engrossing task of
theology during the Christian centuries. It is doubtful whether
we shall ever be able to formulate a definition altogether satis
factory. The New Testament does not attempt formally to do
so. It simply gives the facts as they stood forth in Christ's life
and work. At one time the human, at another the divine, aspect
of his person is emphasized. But there is no evidence of dis-

The Deity of Jesus Christ

union or contradiction manifested at any time. It is necessary,
however, that an effort be made to harmonize the facts of the
record for our own thinking.

First, we look briefly at the early attempts to state the doctrine
of Christ's person.

The Ebionites (A. D. 107) held that Christ was merely a man.
He did not possess a divine nature. As man he was in peculiar
and special relations with God, and from his baptism onward
enjoyed the unmeasured fulness of the presence and power of
the Holy Spirit. Ebionism shared the intense monotheistic belief
of the Jews, and on this account recoiled from attributing divine
qualities to Christ.

The Docetae (A. D. 70-170) denied the reality of Christ's
human body. They embraced the philosophic view current among
the Gnostics and Manicheans in the early Christian centuries, that
matter is inherently evil. Their view of Christ was the result
of an effort to reconcile the purity and glory of Christ's person
with their philosophy. Thoroughly false as it is, the docetic view
is one of the landmarks in the early history of doctrine, show
ing the exalted place Christ held in the estimation of men.

The Arians (A. D. 325) held that Christ was more than man,
but less than God. He was the first and greatest of created
beings. The Arians thought that the Sonship of Christ involved
subordination and origin in time. The Logos united humanity to
himself in the person of Christ. But the Logos was not a being
equal with God, but derived and dependent. The Arians were
condemned at the Council of Nicsea in A. D. 325, and the view has
never had wide acceptance in the succeeding centuries.

The Appolinarians (A. D. 381) denied that Christ had a human
mind or spirit. He possessed a soul or vital, animating principle
of the body. The divine Logos took the place of the human mind
or spirit. This involves a trichotomous view of human nature
which is unwarranted, and it denies an essential element of human
nature itself.

The Nestorians (A. D. 431) denied the union of the human and
divine natures in Christ's person. There was simply a close

M

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

and intimate connection between the human Jesus and God. It
was God and man thus morally related to each other, but not
united in an incarnate life. It was an alliance between God and
man rather than God becoming man.

The Eutychians (A. D. 451) held that the human and divine
natures of Christ were mingled into one. The inevitable result
of this was that the human was overpowered by the divine and
absorbed into it. The Eutychians were known also as Monophy-
sites, because they virtually denied the human nature of Christ
and reduced the two natures to one.

The definition of Christ's person which has been most generally
accepted was that of the Council at Chalcedon (A. D. 451). It
holds that in Christ's person there are two natures. A complete
human and a complete divine nature are united in the one person.
The requirement has ever been that we must not " divide the
person or confound the natures."

The last is the definition which most fully gathers up the state
ments of the New Testament. Yet there are present in the
formula certain speculative elements to which objection has been
and may be made. For example, the conception of two natures,
a divine and a human, in one person is a difficult one. If the
divine nature is complete, how did the self-emptying take place
with the consequent limitations of the incarnate Son? If the
human nature is complete, how could the divine consciousness
become active in the incarnate life? If there was a human will
and a divine will, how avoid the conclusion tHat there were two
persons instead of one? If the human personality found itself
in the divine so that the human nature did not develop an inde
pendent personality, how can we avoid the conclusion that it was
a curtailed or partial rather than a complete human nature?

Later writers, as loyal to the New Testament teaching as the
earlier, have attempted a different form of statement, with vary
ing success. One thing seems clear: the two-nature conception
has been made to dominate too completely in many efforts to de
fine Christ's person. It has been almost impossible to hold the
one-person conception in combination with that of the two-natures

The Deity of Jesus Christ

where the latter is taken as the fundamental fact. In the end it
cannot be excluded. But it is the element lying behind the scene
as it were. The divine nature and human nature, as ultimate es
sences, are difficult conceptions. If we begin with the one Person
who unites in himself the divine and human elements, who is both
God and man, we are much closer to the New Testament teach
ing generally, much closer to the facts as they are recorded in the
Gospels, and much closer to our own religious experience and that
of the New Testament Christians.

We should keep clearly in mind the aim in any effort to ex
press in words the doctrine of Christ's person. It is to unify
our impressions of Jesus as he stands forth in the New Testa
ment and in Christian experience generally. This involves his
preexistence, his deity, his sinlessness, his humanity with its
humiliations and limitations of knowledge, his subordination,
along with his equality with the Father.

There are several possible attitudes which men have taken to
this great task. First, they have denied outright the possibility
of unifying the various elements since these seem to be hope
lessly discordant and incompatible. But this is to prejudge what
God is in himself, and what man is, and their possible relations.

Secondly, men have accepted the deliverances of faith and re
nounced the effort to state more precisely the meaning of Christ's
person. This attitude may serve the average Christian very
well. But Christianity commits a fatal mistake if it renounces
the task of thinking through its own great problems. For the
Christian thinker the attitude is not only cowardly, it is also
vain. The problem is thrust upon him by unbelief. He is bound
sooner or later to face it.

Thirdly, men have adopted a narrowly exacting criterion of
judgment or standard of truth, and have tested the Christian
facts by this. Such a standard is that of causation in the physical
sense as employed by science, or rationality as employed by the
older philosophies. Both of these, proper for their own ends, be
come narrowly sectarian and provincial when forced upon re
ligious phenomena as the sole criteria of explanation. There is

[179]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

involved a confusion of spheres. Religion deals with personal
relations. In the religious sphere free causation rules, not physi
cal. It is now widely recognized that the so-called " pure
thought," or " rationality," of the older philosophies is an ab
straction. Experience as a whole is the basis of truth and
knowledge. Religious experience is the starting-point of religious
knowledge. Of course the facts concerning which we obtain
knowledge exist independently of us. But we acquire truth
about these facts through experience.

The fourth attitude is to recognize the facts of Christian ex
perience and the relation of Jesus Christ to the experience, and
on this basis to seek constructively to define his person in the
light of New Testament teaching. This is the correct attitude.
There will of course come into view certain aspects of the truth
which will remain obscure. At some points we shall have to
confess our ignorance. But in the great essentials faith will not
be disappointed. The facts will yield the necessary statements
of truth.

IV. TlIE PREEXISTENCR OF THE DlVINE SON

We begin with the preexistence. i. There can be no ques
tion as to the New Testament teaching on this point. It appears
repeatedly in the writings of John, as in the Gospel, I : if. and
17 : 5. It is entirely clear in various passages in the Epistles
of Paul, as in Philippians 2 : 5-11. Even in the synoptic Gospels
it is clearly implied occasionally, as in Matthew n : 27. The
synoptic teaching that Jesus is to judge the world, along with
the exercise of other divine functions, calls for his preexistence.
Only thus could his person be made to square with his work.

2. This is not merely ideal preexistence, as some have con
tended. There is no conclusive evidence that the Jews taught
such an ideal preexistence of the Messiah. The New Testa
ment and the contemporary Jewish literature both recognize an
ideal preexistence with reference to other objects, the temple,
Jerusalem, and other things. Instances of this kind are easily
recognized. (Cf. Heb. 9 : u, 24.) But when dealing with the

[180]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

person of Christ the New Testament describes the preexis-
tence in unmistakable terms. He existed in the " form of God."
He counted divinity not a " thing to be grasped." " He became
poor." Those and many other passages forbid us to interpret
the preexistence as merely ideal.

3. The preexistence was necessary to explain the experience
of the redeeming power of Christ on the part of the New
Testament believers. He wrought in a creative manner in them.
They began with the risen Christ who gave the Holy Spirit.
They read the meaning of his person back from the end to the
beginning. The full meaning was disclosed only when the
development was complete.

Only thus can any unfolding life be fully understood. He
was " marked out " to be the Son of God by the resurrection.
He wrought in them a creative, divine, and redeeming work.
Their conviction of his preexistence was in no sense a meta
physical speculation or a mere logical deduction. It was on the
contrary, first of all, a religious necessity. They were seeking
a foundation strong enough to bear the weight of the super
structure. The divine Christ could not have become divine. He
must have been divine in the beginning. Otherwise their worship
of him would have been idolatry.

4. His .preexistent form was that of the divine Son. Here
the disciples began with the historic and passed back from him
to the eternal Christ. They knew the Son in his earthly life.
Then they knew him as Redeemer and Lord. It was against
their Jewish training and preconceptions to take the next step
and attribute deity to the Son. But so great was Christ's power
in them that they did not hesitate. They dared to conclude
that there are relations in the Godhead. Eternal Fatherhood
and eternal Sonship are central in God. With this they clung
as tenaciously as ever to their monotheism. God is one, but he
is not an isolated point, a barren monad, an infinite negation.
In this way the religious experience of the New Testament saints
enabled them to transcend the current philosophic speculations.
The Logos conception was thus transfigured. It was no longer

r isi i

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

an abstraction of the speculative reason. It was rather an eternal
reality, rich in ethical content and spiritual power. Righteous
love is the heart of things because it is central in God. Jesus,
the divine Son, is the only interpreter of the eternal Father.
(John i : 18.)

5. Thus the work of Christ is unified. His creative and
redemptive work appears in a rounded view. Creation and re
demption are parts of the one great purpose of God. In the
creation of man a plane is reached whereon an incarnation is
possible. God in Christ enters his world. He now becomes
immanent in creation in a new and higher sense. Eternal Son-
ship was behind the first creative act. It is now disclosed as the
basis of God's eternal purpose toward man.

V. THE DIVINE SELF-EMPTYING

i. We have already seen that the incarnation implied in some
sense a divine self-emptying. The New Testament repeatedly
states the fact. The classic passage is that in Philippians 2 :
5-11, where it is declared that Christ Jesus "emptied himself."
He passed from a state of glory to a state of humiliation. This
fact has a vital relation to every effort to express the meaning
of Christ's person.

It is to be noted first that it is a self -emptying. There was
no compulsion in the descent of Christ into human conditions.
It was his own voluntary act. It was a divine self-limitation
for a purpose. The Father sent the Son, it is true, but the Son
freely came.

But is it possible for deity to limit itself? it may be asked. In
reply it may be said that creation itself is an instance of self-
limitation on God's part. Creation does not exhaust God. He
has expended himself only partially therein. The stages of being
show this. The crystal, the plant, the sentient animal, human
beings with moral and spiritual endowments, are successive stages
in the self-limitation and self-impartation of God. He reveals
only so much of himself in chemistry, in biology, in astronomy,

The Deity of Jesus Christ

as these spheres make possible. All created spheres of being
do not exhaust God. The capacity for self-limitation is a mark
of the infinite perfection of God. It reveals him as a moral and
spiritual and personal being who can conceive ends and devise
means for carrying them into effect.

2. The incarnation was a divine self-emptying for redemptive
ends, under the form of human personality. Deity in the dis
tinctive sense could become incarnate in human form because
human personality contains the essential elements of all per
sonality, viz., self-consciousness, intelligence, feelings, moral
nature, will. Personality is the point at which creation in
its ascent returns to God. Man bears the divine image. Per
sonality thus becomes the medium through which a divine self-
revelation is possible in the form of an incarnation.

3. Again, the self-emptying of God in Christ reveals the infinite
mobility of divine love. The word grace is the New Testa
ment word describing this divine act. God's immutability is not
compromised in any way. It is, on the contrary, made prominent
in the incarnation. God's immutability is his moral self-con
sistency. It is his eternal loyalty to himself. Incarnation is his
act of sacrifice which was necessary to express his eternal de
sire to bless and to save. If the ends of love required an in
carnation, and God were without capacity for incarnation, then
love would have been impotent. God's arm would have been
shortened that it could not save. The incarnation, then, is a mark
of the infinite perfection of God. It expresses the immutability,
the moral self-consistency of God because it was essential to the
manifestation of the love essential in God.

4. The self-emptying of Christ the eternal Son carries with
it great consequences for our own salvation and spiritual destiny.
It enables us to see that Fatherhood and Sonship are essen
tial in the Godhead, and that our own sonship is grounded
in God's eternal life. Again, it enables us to see that God in
Christ has entered the arena of time and space for our redemp
tion. The whole foundation of Christianity is changed radically
if we deny the deity of Christ. Unless divine love stooped and

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

came for our salvation, then we have another kind of religion
entirely. Again, if we deny that Christ is God, we have no
revelation of God which is central and essential. In that event
Jesus becomes simply one among the many leaders of men, not
their Saviour and Lord. His view of God is not God's word to
us, but only the expression he gave of his finite human reaction
upon ultimate reality. God remains hidden from us. The New
Testament writers clearly perceived this and did not hesitate to
assert that the incarnation was the result of a pretemporal divine
act, a self -emptying, an act of sacrifice of the eternal Son.

5. The self-emptying of Christ was not a putting off abso
lutely of divine attributes. Some kenotic theories attempt a dis
tinction between the relative and the essential attributes coupled
with the view that the relative were laid aside while the essential
were retained. Omnipotence, and omniscience, and omnipresence
are the relative, while love and holiness are essential. Others
have held that the divine actually became human and ceased to
be divine. Both views are erroneous. The deity in all its parts
remained. But it subsisted in the incarnation in human form. It
was this fact which constituted the incarnation. We must keep
in mind the fact that the life of Jesus Christ was continuous
with the life of God. It was the outcome of a pretemporal act.
Its end was the redemption of men. In a real sense the incar
nation was an instance of the exercise of divine omnipotence
and omniscience as well as of the divine love. It was infinite
wisdom devising a way to achieve a holy end, and infinite power
bringing it to pass. It indicates in a striking manner the infinite
resourcefulness of divine love. It displays the infinite mobility
of the divine immutability. It opens to us the infinite moral
wealth and grace within the Godhead itself. In a word the
incarnation, paradoxical as it may seem, is the embodiment in a
supreme saving act, of the omnipotence and omniscience and the
unchangeableness of the infinite God, in obedience to the supreme
and central reality of his own being, his righteous love.

The self-emptying of Christ in the incarnation, then, meant
the retention of divine qualities and powers, but under the re-

The Deity of Jesus Christ

straints and limitations of a human life. There was a voluntary
suspension of the full exercise of divine attributes in the incar
nation. But potentially all divine resources were present. For
the time and purpose of the incarnate life there was in part a
self-reduced form of being. " He emptied himself." " He took
the form of a servant."

6. We cannot fully grasp the process by which this self-empty
ing took place. The psychology of the incarnation is beyond
us. But there are certain analogies which may help. Take
the case of a mathematical genius, and think of him at the be
ginning and then at the end of his training. As a boy he has
merely the elements of mathematical knowledge. Yet there is
present a capacity for all knowledge. Years afterward he is
master of all mathematical learning. What was implicit in him
has become explicit. Now conceive of him as teaching a be
ginner. Again he empties his mind of the riches of acquired
knowledge and becomes a beginner again. Yet the acquired
knowledge, while out of consciousness, is at his command.

Again, consider the case of a musical genius. He is a great
pianist, a master of his art. But for sufficient reasons one day he
performs with gloves on his hands. You may detect certain
qualities which identify the player, but his performance is an
inadequate expression of his power because of the medium through
which he plays. The powers are there, but not fully expressed.

Again, take the case of a father whose little son has been
hurt in an accident and lies at the point of death. The father
drops out of his consciousness entirely the knowledge of a great
system of department stores of which he is owner. He now
devotes himself night and day to the task of seeing that his
child be saved from death. Money, time, comfort, all are sur
rendered for love's sake.

These are imperfect analogies, but they are suggestive. In
the first we have the oblivion of the teacher for the sake of the
pupil. In the last, the oblivion of affection in the interest of
the beloved. In the second we have an instance of suspended
power because of an inadequate medium for its exercise.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Now the above illustrations are characteristic of human nature
as limited in intellectual range, and as functioning in thought
through a brain. If deity becomes incarnate it can only be under
such limitations. An incarnate life is an enfleshed life. It is
not a divine coupled with a human life. This is the old Nestorian
theory. It is not two consciousnesses and two wills, much less
two personalities. It was not that Jesus did certain things in his
divine, and others in his human nature, as if he were sometimes
God and at other times man. In brief, there were not two con
sciousnesses, nor two wills, nor two personalities, but one con
sciousness, one will, and one personality. This one personality
was divine-human. It was constituted by the indissoluble union
of a divine and a human factor. These factors were not merely
placed side by side, or in relations of fellowship. They were
rather in relations of mutual interpenetration and vital union. All
sense of dual consciousness and dual life is absent. We are
not to think of the divine imparting its qualities to the human
and vice versa, as if there were an interval between to be bridged
over. We are to think rather of a personality constituted by the
vital union of the two factors and qualified or conditioned by the
action of both.

7. Finally, the self-emptying of Christ was the answer to the
human search for God. These two are correlatives: man's up
ward striving and God's gracious descent. All religion marks
man's ceaseless quest for God. The dim light that shines through
nature, through conscience, and through the ethnic faiths, dis
closes God's impulse to reveal himself and to bless. Step by
step the creation ascends toward God. In man it is not divine,
but possesses capacity for God. It is made " a little lower than
God." It is the matrix, the receptacle into which God can pour
his* fulness. In humanity the divine immanence rises to a new
level. There is but one step to its completion. The incarna
tion is that step. Henceforth, through his redemptive work which
is a new creation, Christ will raise men to the level of the divine
in that they will become partakers of the divine nature.

From the preceding it is clear that the incarnation is not an

[186]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

abrupt or violent incursion into an orderly universe. It is rather
the completion of the movement in creation and in God. Human
ity, under the dominion of sin, yet felt its destiny and forever
yearned for the eternal life. The outgoing movement of right
eous love in God from which creation sprang, now takes the
new form of incarnation to meet the human need.

In Jesus Christ, God and humanity become one. Humanity
finds itself ideally and forever in him. He expresses ideally and
forever the inner core of God's heart and life. The blending
in a vital union of the two forms of life in a simple indissoluble
and enduring personal life is thus the self-fulfilment of both God
and man.

VI. STAGES IN THE REASCENT OF CHRIST

If we are to be true to the New Testament representations we
must recognize clearly the human conditions of the earthly life
of Christ. The fact of the incarnation means his entrance into
those conditions. It was not mere contact at a single point.
He " took hold "of our nature at all points. Rather he passed
into and tabernacled in it, and we beheld his glory as of the
only-begotten Son of God. This fact carries with it certain im
portant truths. First, as a human life it was subject to the laws
of growth. There is no proof in Scripture that the infinite divine
consciousness was present in the early life of Jesus. " He grew
in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and men "
(Luke 2 : 52). At the age of twelve his temple experience was
a turning-point in his spiritual consciousness ; " Knew ye not that
I must be in my Father's house ? " His baptism was epochal
for the growth of his consciousness. The voice from heaven
confirmed and reassured him as to his calling and mission.
'Thou art my beloved Son" (Luke 3 : 22). The temptation
was a great moral crisis. The assaults of the tempter clarified
his sense of his mission, and strengthened him in his power
of resistance. At a later period his soul seems deeply stirred by
the foreseen necessity of his death and resurrection. (Luke
12: 50.) On the cross he uttered the memorable words, "It is

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

finished." A process had in some sense reached its end. Paul
declares that the resurrection " marked out " Jesus to be the
Son of God with power. The life after the resurrection was lived
under wholly different conditions. It was during this period
he delivered the Great Commission in which he declared, " All
authority hath been given unto me, in heaven and on earth "
(Matt. 28 : 18). His ascent to the right hand of God consum
mated his earthly career and marked the resumption of full
divine activities.

Secondly, Christ's conformity to the law of growth was not an
element of imperfection, but of human perfection. There is no
stage at which an ideal or perfect human life can become static.
When growth ceases, decline begins. The wide interval between
the early and later stages of Jesus' life in the great elements
of growth and development is the outstanding evidence of his
perfection as man. A perfect life lived under the conditions of
time and space must have succession, novelty of experience, ac
cumulated wisdom, moral reserve, expanding horizon, and deepen
ing of the spiritual consciousness. All these were present in the
unfolding of the unique consciousness of Jesus. It is apparent,
therefore, that if we witness in Jesus a real incarnation, we
must accept the human conditions under which it took place.

Thirdly, it is to be noted that there were at least three factors
in this unfolding life of Christ. There was an intellectual factor.
His growth in wisdom is expressly declared. Also he asserts
that in one respect at least he was ignorant as to the future, the
day and hour of his return. (Matt. 24 : 36.) We must accept
this statement at its face value. We must avoid assuming a
double consciousness which destroys the unity of his person.

There was also a moral factor in his growth. He was tempted
throughout his life, yet without sin. (Luke 22 : 28; Heb. 4 : 15.)
He learned obedience through the things that he suffered. (Heb.
5:8.) He was made perfect through sufferings. We are not
of course to conceive of his growth from the imperfection of
sin or moral weakness to a state of sinlessness. His moral
growth means that his life was morally conditioned. Character

[188]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

is an achievement under God's grace. He was sinless because
he had moral power to conquer, not because he was irresistibly
compelled to do right. The self -empty ing meant the entrance of
the eternal Word into the conditions of moral struggle, that is,
into human conditions. All this is but saying that the human life
was real, and that the incarnation was real. Both great realities
are involved, the one equally with the other. A life without
growth or moral struggle means an exclusively divine life, not
an incarnation.

Another factor in the unfolding of Jesus' consciousness was
the Messianic. He began his public career with the conviction
of his Messianic calling. But that calling was to be progres
sively realized through his life experiences. Its full contents,
therefore, came to him by degrees. He never for a moment
wavered, nor was he hastened prematurely to the goal. But
there is no evidence that all the details of the future lay before
him like an open book from the first day of his public ministry.
He moved step by step to the goal. The great issues he knew in
advance. The details came in their proper order. Sometimes he
expressed surprise. He marvels at the unbelief of men. (Matt.
8 : 10; Mark 6 : 6.)

His Messiahship, of course, rested upon his eternal relation
to God as Son. Very early his sense of Sonship appears in the
records. But here also there was unfolding to larger things.
The babe could not have the consciousness of the mature man.
We may not fathom the mystery of his consciousness at this
point. We can only understand it in the light of the facts as
recorded. Certainly there are moments when Christ is con
scious of an eternal relation to God. (Matt, n : 27; John 17 : 4.)

Dorner has held that the incarnation was gradual, and that it
was complete only at the end of Christ's earthly career. This,
however, is not in accord with the facts as they are recorded.
The incarnation was complete at all stages of the earthly life.
But it was the completeness of a humanly conditioned mode of
being. If we distinguish the two elements of his person we
may assert with equal truth that the human factor was also

[189]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

incomplete in the earlier stages. It was not a gradualness of
incarnation, but rather the progressive unfolding of the conscious
ness of the incarnate. It was the unique and supreme person
ality of all time realizing itself through the successive experi
ences of an earthly conditioned life. The supreme moral and
religious consciousness of man became indissolubly one with the
eternal redemptive consciousness of God's Son.

Fourthly, the spiritual principle of the incarnation comes to
clear expression in the cross. Life through death is the clue
to its meaning. The grain of wheat must die if it is to live
again in fulness and power. Christ was exalted because he had
taken the form of a servant. God realizes himself in the essen
tial meaning of his deity when he gives himself for his creatures.
Thus the most intimate bond of union between God and man
is the capacity for self-sacrificing love, common to both. The
incarnation is the concrete expression of that capacity in God.
The Christian life is man's response to God's act, and it embodies
the same ethical ideal, the same law of self-realization, life
through death. The doctrine of the incarnation, therefore, is
no speculative abstraction. It is no merely rationalistic con
clusion of metaphysics. It is rather the most intensely religious
and experiential truth of Christianity. At its heart is contained
the deepest truth as to the moral and spiritual nature of God
and man. In other words, our capacity to humble ourselves, to
serve, to sympathize, to come under the conditions which rule
in the lives of others, to submit and obey in order to bless —
this capacity, we say, is not a mark of our unlikeness to God, but
of our kinship to him. And God's own capacity to stoop to
human conditions, to seek out and redeem men, is not the lowest,
but rather the most divine impulse of his nature.

VII. OBJECTIONS

A number of objections have been anticipated and answered in
one form or another in the preceding exposition. A few others
may now be noted.

[190],

The Deity of Jesus Christ

1. First, it is objected that the doctrine of the incarnation com
promises the unity of God. The ancient charge of ditheism or
tritheism is always in evidence against the Christian view. Many
seem to think the case is closed when the charge is made. More
will be said in reply when the Trinity is considered. For the
present one or two points may be noted. Christianity is mono
theistic to the core. Let not this be forgotten. But Christianity
derives its doctrine of God from the facts of history and of
experience. It adheres not to a speculative, but to an experiential
monotheism. God's word to us and in us, God's great deed of
revelation and redemption, supply the basis. Theology brings no
abstract theory of knowledge to the facts in an effort to coerce
the facts into conformity with the theory. It accepts the facts
and seeks to interpret them.

Again, the non-Trinitarian view is more difficult to maintain
on rational grounds than the Trinitarian, as we shall see.

The revelation of God in Christ solves for us all the great
spiritual mysteries as far as they may be solved for us men in
this life. The other view is based on an abstract conception of
unity which leaves God as an unrelated monad. Internal rela
tions are not inconsistent with the idea of deity if they are so
conceived as to enhance and enrich our view of the infinite wealth
of God's grace and to conserve the unity of his action. Cer
tainly the preexistence of Christ reveals eternal love as real in
God, and supplies a ground in God's essential being for all
the great ethical and spiritual realities of faith.

2. A second objection is that man as finite cannot reveal God
as the infinite. Here, again, is involved a false view of the rela
tions between finite and infinite. As has been remarked, the
principle of deism was that the finite has not capacity for the
infinite. Man cannot grasp God. But the principle of Christian
theism is that the infinite has capacity for the finite. In other
words, finite and infinite are not mutually exclusive terms. If
so, then agnosticism would be true. God could not reach man
because of his infinitude, and man could not reach God because
of his fmitude. The usual argument in all forms of theism,

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

whether Trinitarian or not, implies the possibility of an incarna
tion. We infer that God has will, intelligence, consciousness,
from the possession of these qualities by men. That is, we argue
God's personality from our own. There is no warrant for
taking a leap into the unknown and inferring further that the
divine personality is incapable of expression in human form. On
the contrary, the possession of personality by both God and man
implies that such expression is possible. Observe also that our
own personality is the highest mode of finite being known to us.
If God cannot express himself through it, there remains no
medium whatever. We are at once driven to the unknowable and
to the paralysis of all religion.

3. It is also objected that the mystery of the incarnation is
too great for us to accept. It is sometimes declared to be " un
thinkable." As to the latter expression, it may be replied that
unthinkableness is relative to the thinker. One might almost claim
that the Christian Trinity is simplicity itself compared with many
modern views, for example, the various forms of Hegelianism
and Neo-Hegelianism, pluralism, the view of Bergson, and others.

In fact, we accept many truths which are inexplicable to reason.
One is the truth of man's freedom and God's sovereignty. An
other is the possibility of prayer and God's eternal purpose.
Another is the possibility of human initiative through the action
of the will. Another is the truth that God is self-caused, an abso
lutely unique fact.

4. It is also objected that the doctrine of the incarnation is
inconsistent with modern thought. We reply that the phrase
" modern thought " is very elastic, and more or less vague.
There is a threefold answer, however, to the general objection.
Modern thought in its lower form has no right to speak on the
subject at all. Modern thought in its higher form is too self-
contradictory to speak with authority. Modern thought, when
properly unified, speaks in favor of the Christian view.

Let us consider these points in order. By lower we mean that
which deals with matter rather than spirit, (i) Modern thought
in its lower form has no right to speak on the subject of the

[ 192]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

incarnation. The lower ranges of modern thought deal with
physical phenomena, and explain in terms of continuity or
physical causation. On all questions regarding the soul, im
mortality, God, and religion, it is silent. Its sphere is dif
ferent. Confusion and conflict arise only when it attempts to
intrude into the spiritual sphere and to impose its standards, its
criteria of truth and reality, there.

(2) Modern thought in its higher forms is too self-contra
dictory to speak with authority. A few only of many examples
are given from able and representative modern writers. Pro
fessor Royce holds that incarnation and atonement in principle
is the real key to the meaning of the universe, but denies that
the principle found expression in Jesus in an unique and excep
tional sense. He waives the question as to Jesus and works
solely with philosophic principles. Professor Eucken holds that
regeneration through the union of man with God is necessary to
self-realization on man's part. Only thus can he overcome the
contradictions of life and find himself in the highest sense. But
Professor Eucken rules out Jesus very positively as unnecessary
to man's religious development.

Another group of idealists, or personalists, who are quite as
able and modern as Eucken and Royce, hold that an incarnation,
such as we have in Jesus Christ in the evangelical sense, is the
necessary and only rational expression of the meaning of God.
Idealism here takes on the personal form, and incarnation and
atonement, life through death, becomes an act of God as in
carnate through the Son. Eternal Fatherhood and eternal Son-
ship are essential to God, and all other forms of fatherhood and
sonship are derived from this.

Again, Prof. William James holds that conversion is the re
sult of a supernatural working of God in the soul. It is a
miraculous act, not in the pantheistic sense according to which all
is miracle in nature and man ; but rather in the strict and proper
sense of a direct action of God producing an exceptional result.
But Professor James is an agnostic as to the cause of Christian
experience. We cannot with assurance assert that it is Jesus

N [ 193 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Christ. As against him, Ritschl holds that the one thing we do
know certainly is that the knowledge and power of God is
mediated to us through Jesus Christ. It would be easy to multiply
examples, but it is unnecessary. Thinkers of many schools, all
intensely modern in spirit and attitude, hold most diverse views
as to the relation of Christ to God and to human salvation. Hence
the vague charge that the Christian view is against modern
thought is without adequate support. All depends upon the
particular phase of modern thought the objector represents.

(3) The third reply is that when properly unified modern
thought speaks a real message in favor of the Christian view. The
following considerations are in point here. As stages in man's
progressive understanding of the universe, the various types of
opinion easily find place. Physical science discloses the arena,
or platform, for the working out of a higher spiritual end.
Idealism in its more abstract form is a logical outcome of man's
intellectual effort to grasp the meaning of the world. He finds
an immanent reason everywhere. But personal idealism is sure
to arise, since we only know reason in ourselves in personal
form. We never have it in abstraction. Personality involves
freedom, and this carries us above physical causation to a new
order of being. Here religion enters with all it implies as to
fellowship between God and man. The phenomena of the re
ligious life find their true key in Jesus Christ. He alone ex
plains them all. Recent philosophy, in its theories of knowledge,
confirms strongly the method of Jesus. We learn by doing.
Truth is tested through the processes of life. The will, the emo
tions, the moral nature, enter into our apprehension of spiritual
truth. This is the direction of modern thought in its conception
of how we know things. Not speculation, not abstractions, not
a priori deductions, but living experience, this is the modern and
the Christian method as well. This is the method of Jesus. In
him all lines of modern thought may be unified.

Again, modern thought in its higher representations builds on
aspects of Christian truth. Royce employs the conception of
incarnation and atonement. Eucken makes use of the doctrine

[194]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

of the new birth. James, in his " Varieties of Religious Experi
ence," utilizes the idea of regeneration also, but adds the concep
tion of the supernatural. All these thinkers work with the central
Christian conception of the cross, dying to live. Ritschl goes
farther and asserts the divine function of Jesus in it all, but has
not the courage to assert all that the function involves as to Christ's
nature. Blewett and Bovvne combine all the lower elements into
a self-consistent personalism, or Christian theism, which unifies
the many elements of modern thought, thus approximating very
closely an evangelical Christian result. Many modern Christian
thinkers carry out the process completely. Thus it appears that
modern thought at no vital point contradicts the Christian view.

VIII. RIVAL THEORIES

Modern theories which compete with that presented here are
too numerous to review in detail. We select a few only as suf
ficiently representative of the various types.

1. The first is that of the humanitarian Christ. Jesus was in
no sense God. He was divine only as all men are divine. He
was the prince of saints, the consummate flower of the race
up to his own time. He had fellowship with God as a religious
man. We may imitate his faith. We may strive to be like him.
But he is no divine Redeemer. Those who hold this view do
not regard him as sinless, but recognize the exalted nature of
his piety. His miracles are denied. All the sayings which make
him man's religious object and the judge of the world are elim
inated. The answer to this will be given in the reply to the next
theory to be mentioned. What belongs to the reply there will
be even more applicable here.

2. The second is the theory that Jesus was a man only, but as
man he was filled with the divine presence. He was a miracle in
the sense that he sustained a perfect and unwavering fellowship
with God. His consciousness was a God-consciousness in this
sense alone. He was thus God's revelation to us. He is the
archetypal man. He is our Saviour in that he shows us the

[195]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

way to God. This is the theory of Schleiermacher. It is widely
diffused in modern times, with variant features. Some who hold
it exalt him almost to a position equal with that of the Trinitarian
view, including resurrection from the dead and the future return
in glory to judge the world. Others leave the latter as open
questions, with a strong tendency to deny them or to relegate
them as without value for faith.

The reply to these theories have already been indicated in the
previous exposition. Here a brief summary will suffice.

(1) Christian experience speaks otherwise about Christ. We
cannot, if we would, elminate him therefrom. The factors of
our Christian consciousness all imply a present Christ. We know
him as Redeemer and Lord.

(2) Christian history agrees with our own experience. In it
is recorded the consensus of believers of all Christian time. The
creeds of Christendom, the hymns of the redeemed, the art of
the centuries, all bear witness to the deity of. Jesus in man's ex
perience of the Christian salvation. A divine place must be
attributed to Christ unless we are to repudiate all the evidence.

(3) The witness of the New Testament writers is every
where against the view. There is no question as to Paul and
John. Both taught that Christ preexisted before the founda
tion of the world, and that he was eternal Son, God manifest in
the flesh.

The synoptic writers present the same kind of Messiah, al
though the development does not therein reach its climax. But
in the synoptics he is the miracle-worker; the religious object;
the Son who alone knows and reveals the Father; the future
judge of the world. The very words of Jesus as recorded in
the synoptics give us those conceptions of his person. Criticism
has left all the great sayings of Jesus intact. Some critics, on
a priori grounds, reject all as untrustworthy except a half dozen
or so sayings. A very few even deny the historicity of Jesus.

But scientific and legitimate criticism, which only rejects or
accepts on critical grounds, leaves the great supernatural Christ
as Christian faith has ever held him.

The Deity of Jesus Christ

With reference to the first theory, it should be said that it
can be maintained only by refusing to let the New Testament
writers or Jesus testify as to his person. The current effort
to reduce Christ to a merely human level is in the highest de
gree unscientific and uncritical in its attitude toward the witness
of the New Testament. Contemporary tendencies, ideals, world-
views, are arbitrarily assumed to be the source of all the extraor
dinary statements about Jesus. Yet Jesus is retained as a
religious man of the highest order and helpful in some sense to
us. There is no sound critical basis for this view since the
attempted reconstruction had already undermined the entire
witness of Jesus and the New Testament. The humanitarian
Jesus is the product of naturalism working in the religious sphere,
and a priori rejection of the supernatural in advance. The whole
question is prejudged, because the critic assumes as a funda
mental basis of his theory a particular view of how the universe
is made. He does not let the facts answer, but imposes his
views on the facts.

As to the second theory, that of a supernatural yet human
Christ, it is to be said that it asserts too little or too much. The
assumptions which go with it are those which in many respects
go with the first theory. Yet it asserts too much for that theory.
Why a miraculous human Christ if we do not need a divine
Saviour? The first theory is logical in rejecting all the super
natural on the basis of its assumptions. The second theory goes
too far unless it will go farther. The first Christians, the later
Christians, and modern Christians find a divine Christ through
their religious experience. Their salvation is a divine deed.
They construe its author as divine. The view is self-consistent.
It is not surprising that the second view tends to drop back
to the level of the first, or to go forward to the true view.

3. The third theory regards Christ as preexistent only in an
ideal sense. He was the fulfilment in time of a divine ideal in
God's mind in eternity, but not the incarnation of a preexistent
divine person.

In reply, we note first that this view is without New Testa-

[197]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

ment warrant. Formerly men strove to interpret Jesus, Paul,
and John in this sense. But scientific exegesis no longer does
so. A real personal preexistence is the New Testament teach
ing, however modern rationalism may attempt to set it aside. The
New Testament indeed knows of ideal preexistence with refer
ence to some things. But it is in marked contrast to this that
Christ is regarded as personally preexistent. In Hebrews 9 : 23,
the writer, in speaking of the vessels and services of the taber
nacle, says : " It was necessary therefore that the copies of the
things in the heavens should be cleansed with these." The Jewish
mind was familiar with the thought of ideal preexistence in God's
mind, and it could clearly express that idea. But it was also
capable of expressing the thought of actual preexistence and has
done so through Paul and John and others in many places in
the New Testament.

The theory of ideal preexistence is usually based on the ob
jection to the evangelical view of Jesus as too metaphysical.
But ideal preexistence is quite as metaphysical as the opposing
view. It seeks to penetrate as deeply into the being of God.
It merely reaches another conclusion.

The fact is that the theory of ideal preexistence is closely akin
to the metaphysical speculation of Philo, which is even older than
the New Testament doctrine. The conception of Philo was that
the Logos, or divine reason, is an eternal principle in the nature
of God. It came into action in all God's creative work. Some
times Philo seems to think of the Logos as an eternal person
in the Godhead, but usually it is the principle of the eternal
reason. The modern conception of ideal preexistence is very
similar as a metaphysical speculation. But the New Testament
teaching is quite different. The conception is that of a real
person. The motive is moral and spiritual and practical, not
metaphysical. Here a divine Redeemer is in question with power
to save, not a problem of the speculative reason.

Again, this theory weakens our view of the ethical fulness
of the divine nature, and leads to a relativism which com
promises many great interests. Fatherhood and Sonship, if real

The Deity of Jesus Christ

in God, supply the eternal ground of the earthly relation. If
love be real in God, then human love, and an eternal kingdom of
love have their roots deep in the ultimate being of God. If,
on the other hand, God be a monad, existing without internal
relations, without any mutuality or reciprocity within, all ethical
and social relations among men sink to a level far below that
which we are accustomed to hold. If God is love, he must be
so eternally. If God is our Father, then fatherhood must be
original in him and not merely derived from its temporal form in
man. If it be said that fatherhood and sonship and love are
merely parables or symbols of what God is, and that they do
not assure us of essential realities in God, the reply is that this
is agnosticism. It is fundamental for Christian theism to hold
that God expresses himself in the finite. God is not concealed,
but revealed by the things he has made. Every pathway run
ning through the marvelous creation of God leads up to the
glory of his being: the pathway of power, of order, of beauty,
of life, of thought, of will, of feeling, of personality, of freedom,
of love, of fatherhood, of sonship — all lead up to the Eternal, who
pours himself into his creation, and builds it into a kingdom
radiant with all that is highest in himself.

4. A fourth theory is that of Prof. William Sanday. It is not
a denial of the evangelical view, but rather an effort to explain
how the incarnation took place. Doctor Sanday makes use of
the subconscious in our mental nature as the key to the incar
nation. Psychology has emphasized the fact that our mental
life has two departments. One of these is consciousness; the
other the realm of the subconscious. Consciousness is, as it
were, the front room, and subconsciousness the back room of our
psychic life. In the subconscious we carry the accumulations
of memory and experience. These are called forth through the
operation of the laws of association as our need requires. Many
students of the psychology of religion have emphasized the teach
ing that in regeneration God acts upon us through the subcon
scious, producing therein the necessary change in our nature.
Professor Sanday goes a step farther, and asserts that in be-

[199]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

coming incarnate the divine entered Jesus in the subconscious
part of his being, and that his person is to be defined from this
point of view. The divine and human elements were fused into
unity in this way.

What shall we say of this view? It contains an interesting
suggestion, and no doubt an element of truth. But it is not an
adequate explanation of the incarnation. Several statements may
be made to show this.

(1) First, we may say that the subconscious is not superior to
the conscious department of our mental life. It contains rather
the results of previous conscious states. Or, at best, it is a poten
tiality in us. It is like the state of infancy or sleep. The most
significant of our states are those of consciousness, in which we
think and will and feel. It is when we reason or resolve or love
that our nature shows itself in its higher meanings. It follows
from this that in Christ the most important elements of his
spiritual life were those of consciousness. His deity found ex
pression in what he said and did.

(2) Again, the view is objectionable in that it involves an
irreconcilable dualism in Christ's nature. If the human side of
Christ's being found expression in his conscious states and the
divine side in the subconscious, no real unity of the person can
be asserted. The theory divides the person into higher and
lower elements. The biblical teaching and the unity of human
personality generally require unity in our conception of the per
son of Jesus. Instances of multiple personality, as shown in the
researches of psychology, are not cases of normal personal life.
They do indeed impress us with the complexity and mystery of
all personal life, but they are not to be taken as typical of the
highest forms of that life. They are pathological or abnormal
types, and do not serve to explain in any way the highest of all
forms of personal life, that of Jesus, the Son of God.

(•3) A third objection is that the theory results in a form of
agnosticism. It leaves the deity in Christ unknown if we con
ceive it as confined to the subconscious in Jesus. The very
heart of the revelation of God in Christ is that the divine

[200]

The Deity of Jesus Christ

declared itself in clear and explicit terms for our understanding.
We read the words and study the deeds of the incarnate One,
and in so doing we learn what the infinite and eternal God is in
himself. But this is impossible if we think of God as con
fined in Jesus below consciousness.

(4) We add in conclusion that there is no doubt an element
of truth in Doctor Sanday's suggestion. Human nature con
tains as a part of itself the subconscious side along with the con
scious. Jesus as truly human possessed both. As the incarnate
One, no doubt both were influenced by all the exceptional ele
ments in his personality. There is no means of separating the
two realms from each other in any radical way. They are con
stantly reacting upon each other. That which is now in con
sciousness soon passes into the subconscious. The contents of the
latter are continually returning to consciousness through the proc
esses of memory in the experiences of life.

5. The fifth theory is the Ritschlian. It takes the name from
Albrecht Ritschl, and holds that Jesus has for us Christians the
value of God. Through him we come to the knowledge of
God. The divine power finds us in and through him. Our
judgment of value regarding him, therefore, is that he is God.
But a judgment of value is not a judgment of reality since we
cannot know ultimate reality. We know phenomena only. To
assert the deity of Christ on the basis of his divine action is an
attempt to go beyond the proper sphere of our human knowl
edge.

In reply there are several things to be said. Some that are
favorable. There is a real truth in the idea of the " value-
judgment." Christ's worth to us is the necessary basis of our
personal estimate of him. Again, what Christ does is a starting-
point for our view of his person. Further, it is true that we can
never compass all reality in our knowledge. We know in part.

On the other hand, it is entirely erroneous to assert that
reality as it is in itself is concealed rather than revealed by its
manifestations. The assertion that ultimate reality is unknow
able is self -contradictory. It requires vast knowledge about it

[201]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

to make that assertion. Not many now attempt a theoretical or
scientific justification of agnosticism based on the Kantian dis
tinction between phenomenal and noumenal reality. Ritschlian-
ism is based on that distinction in the vain effort to avoid meta
physics in theology. Men are simply driven by the make of their
minds to ask as to the ultimate meaning of the world. But
modern philosophy builds on facts, not abstractions.

In the light of this it is clear that Ritschl is wrong in asserting
that Christ's function as Saviour does not reveal what he is in
himself. We know what things are precisely by their func
tions. Effects are our means of knowing causes. Negation
regarding Christ's person and assertions regarding his work may
easily present a combination of ideas fatal to the Christian life.
Human thought cannot be arrested in its search for truth. We
are bound to ask and answer the question about Jesus as best we
may and as far as the facts warrant. Ritschl gave great emphasis
to the New Testament sources of Christianity, but it is quite
evident from all the preceding discussion that his view as to the
unknowableness of God in Christ can be derived from the New
Testament only by a violent method of interpretation. Ritschl's
emphasis on experience, apart from its denial of the mystical
element, is quite in harmony with the gospel. Experience, the
facts of life, the saving power of God as he comes to us in
Christ, supply the foundation for the true view as to Christ's
person. But Ritschl, in deference to the criteria and methods of
physical science, was not bold enough to claim all that he had
a right to claim as a Christian and thinker.

[202]

CHAPTER VIII
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY

I. THE HOLY SPIRIT

biblical doctrine of the Spirit of God exhibits many
marks of progress in the revelation from the earliest to
the latest stages. The Hebrew word for spirit originally
meant " breath." From this it came to mean " wind," and grad
ually it passed into the meaning " spirit." Originally the Spirit
of God meant his energy or power in contrast with the weakness
of the flesh. (Isa. 31 : 3.)

i. In the Old Testament the following are the leading points
in the teaching as to the Spirit of God: (i) The Spirit of God
was God in action accomplishing an end. The Spirit was some
times distinguished from God in the Old Testament, but not in
the later Trinitarian sense. (Gen. i : 2; 6 : 3; Ps. 51 : n.)
(2) The Spirit was the energizing power in the primeval chaos,
bringing out beauty and order. (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104 : 28-30; Job
26 : 3.) (3) Life is imparted to man through God's Spirit.
(Gen. 2:7.) (4) Many powers were conferred on men through
the Spirit, as on Samson and others. (Judg. 14 : 6; n : 29.)
(5) Wisdom and skill were conferred by the Spirit, as in the
case of Bezaleel. (Exod. 31 : 2-5; 35 : 31; 28 : 3.) (6) The
Spirit endowed the prophets with wisdom and revealed divine
truth to them. (Ezek. 2 : 2; 8 : 3 ; n : i, 24.) In the earlier
stages the prophetic gift took the form of enthusiasm or ecstasy,
(i Sam. 10.) Later the prophets were especially chosen as
messengers to convey truth from Jehovah. (7) Moral and spir
itual character is traced to the Holy Spirit also. The ethical
quality of the Spirit's work becomes quite manifest. (Ps. 51 : IT ;
Isa. 63 : 10.) The expression " Holy " came to be applied as the
special designation of the Spirit. (8) The Messiah is to be

[203]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

anointed by the Holy Spirit for his work, and predictions of a
future outpouring of the Spirit appear in the later Old Testament
teachings. (Isa. n : 1-5 ; 42 : iff. ; 61 : i ; so also? Isa. 44 : 3;
59 : 21 ; Joel 2 : 28-32.)

2. In the New Testament the work of the Spirit of God appears
in great fulness.

(1) Observe his work in relation to Jesus. He is present at
the birth of Jesus. He anoints him at his baptism. (Mark
i : 10 ; Luke 3 : 22.) Through the Spirit Jesus endured temp
tation (Matt. 4 : i); Jesus taught, and healed, and cast out
demons through the Holy Spirit. (Luke 4 : 14-21 ; Matt. 12 : 18,
31 ; Mark 3 : 28, 29.) Jesus offers himself upon the crcvss by the
"eternal Spirit." (Heb. 9 : 14.) He was raised from the dead
according to the Spirit of Holiness. (Rom. 1:4.) It is he* who
baptizes with the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 3 : n; Mark i : 8; Luke
3 : 16; John 20 : 22; Acts I : 5.)

(2) Pentecost is the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the
outpouring of the Spirit, and marks the turning-point in the
activities of the first generation of Christians. This is the
baptism of the Spirit referred to above. (Acts 2.)

(3) As the result of the pentecostal outpouring there were
many charismatic gifts or enduements of power bestowed by the
Holy Spirit upon early Christians, such as speaking with tongues,
power to work miracles, and others.

(4) The Spirit of God convicts the world of sin, righteousness,
and judgment. This was to be a special feature of his mis
sion to the world. (John 16 : 9ff.)

(5) Chiefly, however, the work of the Spirit in regenerating
sinners and in imparting power for holy living receives increasing
emphasis. In the later New Testament writings especially the
ethical results of the Spirit's action are made prominent. Paul's
entire conception of the Christian life involves at every point
the presence and fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Believers " walk
in the Spirit." They are commanded to " grieve not the Spirit,"
to be " filled with the Spirit." Paul's own preaching was " in
demonstration of the Spirit."

[204]

The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

(6) In the New Testament the attributes of personality are
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and the teachings on which the doc
trine of the Trinity is founded come into clear expression. Jesus
describes the Spirit as " another Comforter," whom he will send
from the Father. Masculine pronouns are applied to the Spirit :
" He shall teach you," " He shall bring to your remembrance,"
"He shall testify of me." The Spirit "comes," is "sent,"
" teaches," may be " grieved," or " resisted." All these ex
pressions indicate the growing sense of the special and distinctive
work of the Spirit and the personal qualities manifest in his
action. Another group of passages especially emphasize the
Trinitarian aspect of the teaching as to the Spirit of God. The
commission commands baptism in the name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28 : 19.) In 2 Corinthians
13 : 14 Paul clearly distinguishes Father, Son, and Spirit. So
also in I Corinthians 12 : 4-6 Paul mentions the three as sources
of spiritual blessings for believers. (See Eph. 2 : 18; 3 : 2-5,
14, 17; 4 : 4-6; 5 : 18-20.)

3. From the preceding outline of Scripture teaching the follow
ing points are clear : ( i ) The teaching as to the Holy Spirit in the
New Testament is the culmination of the Old Testament teaching
on the subject; (2) in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is
revealed as personal in his action upon men; (3) the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are grouped together and regarded as be
longing to the same class; (4) on the basis of these facts the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity arises. The word Trinity does
not occur anywhere in the Bible, but the thought expressed by
the word is clearly taught therein.

II. THE TRINITY

i. Before proceeding to the chief question in regard to the
Trinity, several preliminary statements are necessary. The first is
that the Christian conception of the Trinity does not imperil the
conception of the unity of God. The Old Testament gave us
monotheism. New Testament writers, mostly Jews, give us the

[ 205 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Trinitarian teaching with no sense of conflict or inconsistency.
The unity of God is clearly held in the New Testament. Some
times the Trinitarian doctrine has been stated in theological works
in a manner which makes it difficult to distinguish it from
tritheism. This is a fundamental error, and should be carefully
avoided.

In the second place, it is to be noted that when we employ the
terms " person " and " personal " in connection with the Trinity,
we do not mean precisely what we have in mind when we apply
the terms to men. With men a person is a separate and distinct
individual, having no essential connection with other individuals.
In reference to the Trinity we mean by personalities inner dis
tinctions in the Godhead. These distinctions, however, are
qualified by the most intimate relations of unity. They express
the meaning of a single divine life, not of three separate and ex
ternally related divine lives. There are not three Gods, but one.
A divine person is not less than a human person, but more. The
divine life is richer and more complete than the human.

In the third place, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not
the result of an effort to solve an abstract metaphysical problem.
It arises out of the revelation in and through Jesus Christ and
out of our experience of the grace of God in him. That is to
say, God has spoken to us in Christ, and our experience of God
in Christ is accompanied by a need which the Trinitarian truth
alone supplies. In the realm of experience, therefore, we find
the solution of several pressing speculative problems.

2. Is the Trinity immanent or economic? The most funda
mental question regarding the Trinity is whether the distinctions
are to be thought of as inside the Godhead itself or as mani
fested simply in the outward activities of God. Some are content
to adopt an agnostic attitude and deny the possibility of solving
the problem. This is an untenable position. The Christian
teacher must not expose himself to the charge of evasion. The
human mind refuses to ignore ultimate questions. The agnostic
attitude on this point is no more justifiable than on others. At the
same time we may and should admit that knowledge here is

[206]

The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

partial. All the questions of ultimate being remain and will
remain partly in shadow until our capacities are enlarged. But
we do have real knowledge. God's revelations do not conceal.
Our discoveries all imply growing capacity for knowledge and an
expanding realm of truth. The infinite is implicit in the finite.

Both Scripture and experience warrant the view that the dis
tinctions in the Trinity are not merely economic. They are im
manent. They are distinctions in the Godhead. The grounds
for this statement are manifold.

(1) All the evidence for the deity and preexistence of Christ
confirms the Trinitarian doctrine. By this it is not meant that the
Trinitarian doctrine is a necessity for thought to those who ac
cept the preexistence doctrine. It is only meant that by the
teaching of preexistence we ascribe immanent distinctions to the
Godhead. If God is eternally Father and Son, then provision is
made for a further distinction of Father and Son and Spirit.

(2) The evidence for the personal action of the Spirit confirms
the Trinitarian view. Beyond all question, the Spirit of God is
revealed as distinct in some sense from God, both in the Old and
in the New Testament. In the New he is clearly revealed as per
sonal. Indeed, a mere " principle " could not mediate the inner
life of the religious man. Personality and personal relations
are essential to the very idea of religion. The Spirit of God, re
garded as a mere principle or impersonal force in man's religious
life, is a self-contradictory conception. Only a pantheistic view
of the world, in which personality loses its meaning, is in harmony
with it.

(3) The Christian doctrine of the Trinity aids man in his specu
lative endeavors. A standing problem of thought is the difficulty
of relating the abstract and infinite being to the finite as con
ditioned. This is not the place to enter fully into the controversy.
But a brief statement is in order. As soon as we attempt to
abolish all distinctions in the Godhead, we come upon insoluble
difficulties. A God without such distinctions has no relations
either within or without. He is unlike and apart from everything
we know. We cannot conceive of him as active in relation to any

[207]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

finite existence without compromise, in some form, of his absolute
ness. The result is that gradually men come to view him as a
simple monad, an indefinable and intangible bare unity lifted
far above all finite forms. He is like the dot above the i, and
unrelated to it. Or else he is conceived of in a pantheistic way
which cancels the meaning and validity of all finite beings, in
cluding human personality. Thus God is absorbed in the world
like water in a sponge. The philosophic thought which takes
either of these directions is fatal to all our higher interests. We
are plunged in hopeless agnosticism, or else we are swallowed up
in the All which devours ruthlessly every form of finite life.

Now the Christian Trinity recognizes that finite being is not
the negation, but in part the expression of God ; that the universe
is a clue to the meaning of the divine Being, not a veil to hide
him from view ; that human personality is a reflection of his
image, not a passing phase of being. It shows that God's own
life may find expression in a finite human life through the incar
nation of his Son; that the infinitude of his being as Father does
not prevent his gift to us of his Spirit, who teaches us to say,
" Abba, Father."

We may sum up the matter by saying that we must find in
God himself the ground for all that we discover in his works.
God sustains relations to man and nature. Hence we are not
surprised to find him revealed as having relations within the
divine nature itself.

3. There are several forms of statement which men have
employed to show the necessity for distinctions in the Godhead.
It is said, for example, that as thinking subject God needs and
requires an object. If the universe is created and finite, God can
only find an eternal object in himself, that is, in one of the persons
of the Trinity.

Again, it is urged that as infinite will God must have a corre
sponding object for the action of his will. This he finds in the
Son and the Spirit.

More attractive than either of these is a third statement, viz.,
that as eternal love God must have an object which is also eter-

[208]

The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

nal. His Son and his Spirit are such objects. Thus it appears <
that the eternal Fatherhood of God and the eternal Sonship of
Christ supply us an infinite ground for love as it is manifest in
the world.

Whatever may be said of the first two suppositions, the last
must appeal powerfully to every thoughtful mind. We place
righteous love at the apex of the divine attributes. It is the
crown of all. And yet apart from immanent distinctions in the
Godhead it is a finite quality. In a sense it is a derived and
dependent quality rather than inherent and essential, since it
arises only after God has created finite beings.

A fourth statement is that God as a moral being generally is
dependent on immanent distinctions in the Trinity. We can
think of God as enacting a moral law, objective to himself, and
establishing a moral system for the benefit of his creatures, but
it lowers the ethical values very greatly if they be conceived as
a mere positive ordinance of God based on expediency and not
grounded in his eternal nature. If we eliminate the ethical ideal
from the divine nature, it is difficult to see how we can ever give
such a system the necessary motive and sanction. It would re
duce God to a merely intellectual being without any wealth of
moral content. On the other hand, to conceive God as eternally
ethical involves relations in the Godhead. At the same time it
gives an infinite sanction to the moral ideal among men, and
greatly exalts its meaning.

A fifth statement is that the ideal of personality itself involves
relationships to others. We remain mere individuals so long as
our lives are apart from other lives. We realize our true per
sonality only in our connections with other lives. Love is neces
sary for us to attain the goal of our being. No truth has become
clearer than this is in modern times. Yet a non-Trinitarian view
of God leaves the most essential element in our self-realization
as personal beings without an adequate basis in the divine nature.

Finally, the Trinitarian view helps us to understand the end of
God in the creation of nature and man. FA moral kingdom of
persons redeemed through Christ is the end set before us in

o [209]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Scripture. The Trinity shows how this kingdom is grounded in
God himself. It shows how the universe is the expression of
God's nature which is righteous love. The very type and ideal
of all that is highest in our individual and social development
are found thus in the Godhead itself. Physical nature is a means
to this personal, moral, and social end. The image of God in
man thus appears in its final and perfected form in a holy society
of men who have been recreated in Jesus Christ.

III. THE PRACTICAL RELIGIOUS VALUE OF THE DOCTRINE OF

THE TRINITY

It was previously stated that the Christian teaching as to the
Trinity is not the result of an effort to solve a speculative problem.
It is a revealed truth, and its grows out of religious experience.
Observe some of the elements of value contained in its meaning
as to God and man.

Through it God becomes for men forever a personal being.
Jesus, who reveals him in the incarnate life, writes this truth
across the face of history. God is a person. He is also paternal.
God is our Father. This conception exalts religion to the highest
possible level. It is fellowship between the Father and the Son.

As to Jesus Christ, the Trinitarian teaching connects his
Saviourhood with the divine nature itself. His incarnation be
comes for us the token of God's capacity for sacrifice. Sacrifice
on our part becomes the imitation of God. As Saviour Jesus is
armed with infinite resources for his redeeming work. He is
" mighty to save." This was the experiential conviction of the
early Christians in their definitions of Christ's person. His deity
and Saviourhood were indissolubly bound together.

As to the Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian doctrine defines him first
in relation to the Godhead and then in relation to the work of
Christ in and for believers. The material with which the Spirit
works is the truth as it is in Jesus. His sphere of action is
the consciousness of men. He makes the historic manifestation,
the life of Christ, a continuous factor in man's religious life and

[210]

The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

in history. The outward historic revelation of God in Christ be
comes thus the inward revelation of God through the Spirit.

As to believers themselves, the Trinitarian doctrine saves them
from unfruitful views of God as above the world on the one
hand, and as identical with the world on the other. The Holy
Spirit creates the spiritual union between the believer and Christ
by his regenerating act. He forms the Christian consciousness in
terms of fellowship with God, of sonship, of growing moral like
ness to God in Christ. He sustains the inner life of Christians in
all stages of its development from beginning to end. In a word,
the Holy Spirit makes the historical revelation in and through
Christ morally and spiritually effective in the life of believers.
His work is absolutely essential to the success of the gospel. In
view of this, it is easy to understand the saying of John the
Baptist to the effect that the work of Jesus which was to dis
tinguish him in a peculiar manner was that he was to baptize
men in the Holy Spirit. The saying is given in all four of the
Gospels. It is repeated by the Master himself. The gift of the
Holy Spirit at Pentecost is the fulfilment of this promise of Christ.
(See Matt. 3:11; Mark I : 8; Luke 3 : 16; John i : 33 ; Acts
1:5.) In the light of these passages, then, we may say: (a) that
the relation of Christ to men after his ascension was a relation
created and maintained by the Holy Spirit; (b) that the outpour
ing at Pentecost was the permanent baptism of the Holy Spirit ;
(c) that the Spirit remains as the guide of Christ's people through
all the gospel age ; ( d) that the Spirit's distinctive work is to carry
forward the work Christ began ; (e) that Christ's activity on earth
is thus continued in and through the Holy Spirit. (Acts I : I.)

IV. OBJECTIONS

In the preceding discussion most of the usual objections to the
Trinity have been met in the positive statements made. There
are four others to be named. The first is that some of the ethnic
religions have forms of Trinitarian belief, from which it is in
ferred that the Christian Trinity must be false. The reply is

[211]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

that it is a reversal of the proper method of inductive logic to
declare that a thing is untrue because there are so many examples
of it. The contrary is the true method. The greater the number
of examples, the greater the force of the verifying evidence. As
in so many other particulars, Christianity is the ideal toward
which the ethnic religions pointed. Their trinities are far below
the Christian in their appeal to man's religious craving in their
ethical quality, and in self-consistency and harmony with the
divine unity. The Christian Trinity is a revealed truth which is
abundantly verified in our experiential religious life.

A second objection is that the doctrine of the Trinity is self-
contradictory in asserting that God is three and one at the same
time. The reply is that manifoldness of life is not a self-contra
dictory idea. A barren unity of being would be far more difficult
to conceive. Besides, the objection is groundless in that the
three-ness and one-ness of God are asserted with reference to
different aspects of his being. God is three in one respect, and
one in another, as man is two in one respect, and one in another.
He is body and spirit. But he is one person.

A third objection is that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is
unthinkable. This objection sounds very formidable. But it is
quite vague. What is thinkable depends on the thinker. Implied
in the objection is the assumption that reality must conform to
our thoughts about it. On the contrary, our thoughts are bound
to conform to reality if we are to have true thoughts. What
God is in himself, God alone can make clear. God's revelation
of himself in Christ and in our experience of him through the
Spirit, is his answer to our theories of knowledge. We must re
make those theories if they contradict the given facts. As to the
unthinkableness of the Trinity, we need only reflect a moment
upon modern philosophic thought to be reminded that in its
better representatives it tends to confirm the Trinitarian teach
ing. Mention may be made, for example, of certain forms of
personal idealism in which personality is made the ultimate reality
and in which all persons are conceived as having an eternal basis
in the infinite life of God.

[212]

The Holy Spirit and the Trinity

Another objection is that the Trinity is a metaphysical doc
trine and is to be rejected on this account. The answer is that
the doctrine of God is metaphysical in the same sense.

There is no way to avoid some metaphysics in religion. The
modal and economic trinities are all metaphysical doctrines. In
fact all world-views are metaphysical. Yet there is a great
variety of them claiming the field, even by those who in some
instances object to the Christian Trinity on metaphysical grounds.
Indeed, agnosticism itself is a metaphysical world-view. It holds
a very definite conception of the make of the universe.

We must have some metaphysics. But metaphysics should be
well based in facts. Objections to the Christian Trinity on
metaphysical grounds rest on a narrowly rationalistic criterion of
truth. There are several forms of rationality : logical, emotional,
esthetic, moral, religious. A universe emotionally rational implies
a supreme object worthy of our love. A universe esthetically
rational implies a supreme satisfaction of our faculty for the
beautiful. A universe morally rational implies a being who gives
supreme sanction and meaning to the moral law. A universe spir
itually and religiously rational implies a supreme object of wor
ship who cares for us, reveals himself to us, and creates in us
capacity for holy living and fellowship with himself. Metaphysics
goes astray when it assumes that the logical faculty of man alone
finds satisfaction in the universe. It becomes thus abstract and
misleading. The doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity is God's
response to the total religious and moral need of man. It also
arises out of the facts of the religious life itself. It is thus the
best possible answer to our craving for a completely rational uni
verse. Rationality in all its forms, emotional, esthetic, ethical,
logical, and religious, is satisfied in it as nearly as this is possible
under present conditions.

213 1

CHAPTER IX
THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

'E have reserved the discussion of the character and at
tributes of God for the present section for the reason that
we can best understand the God of our Lord Jesus Christ
in the light of the teachings of the gospel and our experience of
God's gracious power in redemption. In other words, we can best
understand the relation between this central doctrine of theology
and the realities and facts of religion after we have given a
general survey of the facts. In preceding sections we have de
fined the knowledge arising out of our experience of salvation.
We have shown our dependence upon the Scriptures as the
authoritative source of our knowledge of God's supreme revela
tion in Christ. We have pointed out the reasons for accepting
Christ as that sufficient revelation of God to us. We have also
seen how it is made effectual in us only through the operation
of the Holy Spirit. We pass next to the consideration of the
infinite and holy God thus made known and thus mediated to us.
After this we shall be prepared to consider the great themes
which deal with God's work and purpose in Creation, Providence,
and Redemption. In this way we are enabled to rise from our
most intimate personal relations to God known in experience,
to an understanding of his great plan and purposes for the
universe. In this way also God is for us a living reality and
not an abstraction of the reason.

I. DEFINITION OF GOD

We begin with a definition of God, as follows: God is the
supreme personal Spirit ; perfect in all his attributes ; who is the
source, support, and end of the universe ; who guides it according
to the wise, righteous, and loving purpose revealed in Jesus
Christ; who indwells in all things by his Holy Spirit, seeking

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

ever to transform them according to his own will and bring
them to the goal of his kingdom.

This definition contains the following elements necessary to
the Christian conception of God: (i) what God is in himself;
(2) in his attributes; (3) in his relation to creation; (4) in his
purpose in Christ; (5) in the progressive nature of his kingdom;
(6) in the kingdom's relations to the Holy Spirit; (7) in the
kingdom's consummation and end.

By way of contrast we add two very much briefer definitions.
Dr. A. H. Strong in his " Systematic Theology " defines * God as
" the infinite and perfect Spirit, in whom all things have their
source, support, and end." Dr. William N. Clarke defines 2 God
as "' the personal Spirit, perfectly good, who in holy love creates,
sustains, and orders all."

Both these definitions are admirable for their conciseness and
clearness. If one cares most for brevity in a definition, it would
be difficult to improve upon these. The chief objection to them
is that they lack the distinctive Christian elements in the idea
of God. Of course the idea of God which these writers present
in their later discussions is not lacking in the Christian elements.
But their definitions imply rather than state them, and a non-
Christian might accept either definition as his own.

In general we may remark that there are a number of objec
tions to the very brief definitions of God given in many works on
theology. First, they are too often abstract and philosophic rather
than warm and living conceptions of God. Secondly, being thus
colorless they appeal rather to the intellect than to the feelings,
the moral nature, and the will. Thirdly, they are usually not
vitally related to the doctrinal views presented in the later discus
sions of their authors. The philosophic conception is set aside
for the New Testament revelation of God when the doctrinal
system is developed. Fourthly, the brief, abstract definition is
usually better suited to apologetics than to theology. In defending
theism against the non-theistic world-views, one may need only

1 " Systematic Theology," Vol. I, p. 52.
a " Outline of Christian Theology," p. 66.

[215]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

to contend for a bare theism. The conception of God may thus
become a dim outline with one or two distinctive features. But
for the purposes of Christian theology far more is required.
In other words, the length of the Christian definition is due to
the wealth and fulness of the Christian idea of God. A fifth
objection to the brief abstract definitions of God is that they
are usually derived from the field of natural rather than that of
biblical theology. For the Christian theologian the revelation
of God in Christ is primary and fundamental. We come to
nature through Christ, not to Christ through nature. While
nature presents very strong evidence for God's existence it tells
us very little about God's character. We attach due importance
to all that nature can teach us. But the corner-stone of Christian
teaching is God's revelation in Christ.

II. THE CHRISTIAN DEFINITION

We proceed next to develop more fully the contents of the
Christian definition of God. This entire volume is indeed an un
folding of the definition we have given. But before we deal with
God's relations with nature and history, and before setting forth
the meaning of his redemptive purpose and his moral kingdom,
it is necessary that we present the Christian teaching as to God's
character and attributes.

i. We note first that God is Sprrit. He has not a body. Matter
is limited and changeable. It is made up of parts. God is not
compounded of parts. He has none of the limitations of matter.
In the Scriptures God is often described as having hands, feet,
arms, eyes, a mouth, and most of the bodily organs. But these
are anthropomorphic expressions designed to set forth his actions
in a vivid human way for our apprehension. He is also described
as having wings, and in many other ways figures of speech are
employed to describe God. These representations are in no way
opposed to the spirituality of God.

There are four chief reasons for ascribing spirituality to God.
First, our own higher nature is spirit, and from it we deduce the

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

spirituality of God; secondly, our spirits have fellowship with
God as Spirit, and thus we know him immediately ; thirdly, Spirit
is the highest form of existence known to us, and we naturally
think of God as a spiritual being ; and finally, God's spirituality is
clearly and repeatedly taught in Scripture. Jesus said to the
woman at the well,3 " God is a Spirit, and they that worship
him must worship him in spirit and in truth."

2. We remark next that God is a person. A personal being is
one who is intelligent, self-conscious, self-determining, and moral.
Perhaps the qualities by which we distinguish personality most
clearly are self-consciousness and self-determination. Self-con
sciousness is the consciousness of self. A personal being can
make himself an object of thought. He knows himself as dis
tinct from other persons and other forms of existence. Self-
determination is the activity of the will. Our freedom inheres
in the capacity for self-determination. It means that we are
determined from within rather than from without. God possesses
these attributes of personality in the highest possible degree of
perfection.

(i) We show the truth of God's personality in several ways.
First, we infer it from our own human personality. Surely God
is not below man in the qualities of his being. Personality is the
highest we know, and we attribute to God a corresponding ful
ness of being. Secondly, we infer God's personality from man's
religious life. Psychology and comparative religion point out
the fact that religion, as it is found among men generally, is car
ried on in personal terms. We address God and have fellowship
with him as a person. A moment's reflection shows that it is
inevitable that this should be true. Every valuable element in
religion arises from the conception of personality in God. Trans
gression, confession, thanksgiving, adoration, faith, hope, love,
and all the ethical ideals of religion arise out of the conviction
that God is a person, and that we have personal dealings with him.
In the third place, the biblical teaching about God uniformly
is that he is a person. The God of the patriarchs, of the prophets,

3 John 4 : 24. The marginal reading, which is preferable, reads, " God is Spirit."

[217]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the apostles, and of Jesus Christ, is a personal God. This
lies on the surface of Scripture everywhere. The pantheistic
conception of God as an impersonal principle, or force, or sub
stance, or law, fails in all essential respects to meet the require
ments of man's religious life.

(2) Objection has been raised to the idea of personality in God.
Personality, it is urged, implies limitation. There is the dis
tinction between the self and the not-self ; between the knower
and the thing known; between the will and the object of the
will. If God be regarded as infinite, it is asked, how can we
ascribe to him these finite modes and forms of activity?

The reply to this objection may take several forms. For one
thing it is based on an inadequate view of personality. Our
human personality is as yet imperfect. Its limitations are not to
be attributed to God. Our objects of thought usually lie outside
of us in space. But God is not located in a particular point of
space. He is not a spatially extended or limited being.

Again, the objection is based on a wrong view of the infinite as
we shall presently see. When we think of the infinite as the
negation of everything known to us, we thereby assert that God
cannot be known by us. If God is wholly unlike man, there is
no standard of measurement by which we can ever know God.

The objection also overlooks the fact that man can make
himself an object of thought. The qualities of personality may
thus appear apart from spatial objects around us. The doctrine
of the Trinity also aids us in conceiving an object of thought for
God within the Godhead itself.

In the fourth place, we reply to the objection by recalling the
biblical teaching that man is made in the image of God. Man's
likeness to God cannot consist in bodily similarity. It can only
be in spiritual qualities. The image of God in man can only be in
personality and the qualities which belong to it.

It is sometimes urged that God is more than personal. The
object of this is to avoid the difficulties involved in the imper
fections and limitations of human persons in our thoughts about
God. Now if the assertion means simply that God is free from

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

all that limits and thwarts man, it is true. He is the transcendent
personality, far above all the imperfections of the highest human
persons. But if the assertion is made in the sense that God is
devoid of self-consciousness and will, if he is without intelligence
and purpose, then it is to be rejected as meaningless. To assert
that God is " above " personality in this sense is to assert noth
ing definite about God. Or rather it is to assert that God is un
knowable. This would be contrary to all religious experience,
contrary to reason, and squarely opposed to the biblical doctrine
of God.

3. As personal, God is also the living God. Life is a term which
cannot be fully defined. Science defines it as correspondence be
tween organ and environment. But it must mean far more as
applied to God, since God has no environment. The life of God
is his activity of thought, feeling, and will. It is the total inward
movement of his being which enables him to form wise, holy, and
loving purposes and to execute them.

4. God is the supreme personal Spirit. The word supreme is
used to define God instead of some other terms which grow out
of philosophical speculation. When we say God is supreme we
mean that there is no being above or beyond him, and that in his
nature and power, and in the qualities of his being, none other
can be conceived of superior to him.

5. The word infinite when applied to God, if properly under
stood, conveys the same idea. But this word has often been used
by philosophers as expressing the notion that God is removed in his
essential being from the sphere of all our knowledge. As in
finite he is opposed to all that is finite or limited. It has been
asserted, and argued, indeed, that God is so far removed from us
in the infinitude of his nature, that we can have no knowledge
of him.

Such a view of God's infinity is mere negation. If when we
look at physical creation or any part of it, and say God is no't
that, nor in any way like that; or when we look at man or any
quality in him, if we say God is not that nor like that, it is clear
that we make no positive statement about God. We simply deny

f 219 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

thus that any of the things known to us give any real knowledge
of God.

But this is not the correct meaning of the word infinite. The
God whom Christ reveals to us, and who makes himself known
to us through nature, is infinite in a far richer and more fruitful
sense of the word. In the qualities of wisdom, goodness, power,
and in many others which we know through man and nature,
we see qualities which belong to God. But they belong to him in
infinite degree. There is, in other words, no limit in him to the
abounding fulness of these qualities and powers. The infinitude
of God, then, is not to be understood simply as a negative way of
thinking of God, but as expressing the largest possible amplitude
of excellence in God's nature.

The word infinite is sometimes understood as mere physical
greatness. In this sense the mind conceives of God as if he
were inimitably extended in space, or indefinitely extended in
time. But the word infinite as applied to God is not primarily
spatial or temporal. We shall speak afterward of his omnipres
ence and eternity and related attributes. These indeed arise
out of the infinity of his nature. But we mean chiefly by the
infinity of God that he is not bound or restricted in his action
by time and space. Our own spirits, in relation to our bodies, in
some faint manner suggest God's relations to space. Our spirits
are not spatial or extended, yet they are related to space. They
are capable also of forms of activity which have no necessary
relation to space. In our personal spiritual life we transcend
space. Yet we may be and are in most of the forms of our
activity related to space. Thus God's infinity means that as the
supreme personal Spirit he rises above space while yet able to
relate himself to it.

Thus the infinite God transcends nature and yet indwells in
nature. He is immanent in the world he has made, carrying it
forward at every stage to its predestined goal.

The above method of arriving at the idea of the infinity of God
is practically very important. We do not make the infinite the
same as the inconceivable or the incomprehensible. It is rather

[220]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

the conceivable and the comprehensible raised to the highest
power. We never fully understand God ; but we do really know
him. This is one important result of the method. God is placed
among knowable objects for our minds and hearts. It is also
suggested thus that God is capable of limiting himself in order
to carry out given purposes or ends. The universe and man are
forms of manifestations of God's wisdom, holiness, love, and
power.

This further outcome is to be noted: created things have
capacity for the divine. Man made in God's image may progres
sively manifest him. There is then no end to human knowledge
or to the growth of the human personality. All the way from
the present finite stage of human growth up to the divine level
itself is open to man for achievement and progress.

Jesus Christ has disclosed to us at once the infinitude of God
in all gracious attributes and man's unlimited capacity for God.
The Scriptures, especially the New Testament, emphasize this :
" For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace " (John
i : 16). In Ephesians Paul prays that grace may abound in
knowledge. (Eph. I : 7-9.)

6. God as the supreme personal Spirit is one. There is and can
be but one supreme, infinite, personal Spirit. The unity of God
carries with it the denial of dualism or the existence of a good
and an evil principle of equal power contending for the mastery
in the universe. It denies polytheism, or the existence of many
gods. The unity of God is not against the Christian teaching as
to the Trinity since the latter doctrine does not mean three Gods,
but only a threefold distinction in the one divine nature.

Two other terms, which are sometimes applied to God, we may
mention here. These are more or less philosophical in character,
and have not the practical value possessed by those we have been
considering.

7. One of these is the word absolute. It means that which is
not relative or dependent. When we apply it to God we mean that
he is independent of all created objects.

The word unconditioned is similar to the othen By it we

[221]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

declare that God is not subject to conditions in his actions and
purposes as we are. He is not limited and thwarted by external
objects in carrying out his plans and purposes.

These words have a certain value in theological discussion,
but they are objectionable in some respects. The meaning of both
of them has varied from time to time. Philosophical speculation
has sometimes emptied them of all positive contents and left them
as mere empty shells of thought. They have thus become ab
stractions of little or no value. For example, it has been alleged
that God is the absolute and unconditioned in the sense that he is
wholly apart from the world, unrelated to it, and hence unknow
able by us. As thus defined the words are without practical value,
and they are untrue. God is not thus apart from the world, and
he is knowable in some measure by us.

Most of the meaning implied in these terms is expressed by the
word infinite as already defined. Hence we are not greatly de
pendent on them in our thinking and speaking about God.

III. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

The attributes of God have been classified in various ways.
They have been divided into communicable and incommunicable/
or attributes which can and those which cannot be communicated
to his creatures; into; absolute and relative,; or those which belong
to God independently of all relations, and those which relate him
to created objects; into immanent and transient, or those which
belong to God's inner being and those which pass over to his
creatures. These three distinctions are practically one. It is not
entirely clear where the dividing line is to be drawn between the
attributes falling under the one head and those under the other.
Writers differ among themselves on this point. Perhaps in the
strict sense we should include only self-existence and immuta
bility under the head of the incommunicable or absolute or im
manent attributes of God.

In fact, there is no form of classification of God's attributes
which is wholly unobjectionable. For this reason perhaps the

[222]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

simpler the method, the better will be the result. Hence we
adopt the distinction of the natural and the moral attributes of
God. Of course the moral attributes are also natural to God, and
the natural are active when he exercises his moral qualities.
Nevertheless, the distinction between natural, as pertaining to//
God's nature, and moral, as pertaining to his moral character J
and relations, is clear and practically valuable.

/. The Natural 'Attributes of God

These are self -existence, immutability, omnipresence, omnis
cience, omnipotence, eternity, immensity.

1 i ) When we say that God is self-existent we mean that he de
rives his being from no outside source. He exists in and of him
self. He did not will himself into existence. His existence is
grounded rather in his nature. He necessarily exists by reason of
what he is in himself.

(2) By immutability we define God as unchangeable in his
nature and purposes. This does not mean immobility or inactivity.
God is infinite in energy and ceaseless in his activity. It does not
mean that God cannot make free choices. The ability to choose
ends and the means for realizing them belongs to God in the
highest degree. God is infinitely free in his choices of both ends
and means. Immutability in God does not mean that he cannot
make progress from stage to stage in the unfolding of his plans
and purposes. God is constantly lifting creation from lower to
higher stages of development. Immutability does not mean that
God cannot change his method in carrying into effect his purposes.
He frequently changes his method, as in the successive dispensa
tions and periods of Old Testament and New Testament history.

Again, immutability does not mean that God cannot feel. Im
mutability does not mean impassibility. God has capacity for
sorrow and sympathy with the suffering and for indignation and
wrath against evil, not because he is deficient in his nature, but
because of his abounding fulness of life.

We may best think of the immutability of God, then, as that

[ 223 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

self -consistency which runs through all his activities. He is
changeless in wisdom, holiness, and power. For this reason he is
infinitely flexible and adaptable in the execution of his purposes.
His ability to change his method to meet an emergency in dealing
with free creatures is a mark of his immutability, not of its
lack. His infinitely wise purposes can be carried into effect only
as he has power to meet each new situation as it arises.

When sin arises he cannot deal with the sinner as with a sin
less being. When he answers prayer it is because he provided
for prayer and its answer in his plan for the world. The in
carnation was not a change in God's nature or purpose. It was
simply a change in the method of his redeeming activity. The
New Testament miracles, like the incarnation, were a form of
his redeeming activity. All these forms of the divine activity
are in accordance with God's immutability. They are, indeed,
required by his self-consistency in dealing with men. The ap
parent changes in God are simply his unresting desire to bless
men. They are the ceaseless importunity of his love. They are
the unquenchable passion of his righteousness seeking to com
municate itself to his creatures. They are not signs of a fickle
or limited nature striving in vain to realize its ends. They are
rather the expression of the infinite fulness and resourcefulness
of God who will not be defeated in his purposes. He pursues
men in all their devious ways because he is righteous love. If
we think of God as a free personal being, dealing with free per
sonal beings, we have the key to his immutability and to the
variety of his methods. There is nothing arbitrary in God's
action. The highest motive is always behind his dealings with
men. We may sum up the meaning of his immutability then
when we say it is his moral and personal self-consistency in all
his dealings with his creatures. The tune of a simple song like
" Home, Sweet Home " may be played on an instrument " with
variations/* But through all the variations the tune runs in self-
consistent unity to the end. God's immutability is like the tune.
It is his self-consistency manifesting itself in endless variations
of method.

[224]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

(3) When we assert the omnipresence of God we mean that
God is not confined to any part or parts of the universe either in
time or space. He is not present in this or that point in space and
absent from some other ; nor in this or that moment of time and
absent from some other. But he is present in all his power at
every point of space and every moment of time. When we speak
of the divine immanence we mean this indwelling of God in space
and time. WTien we speak of the divine transcendence we assert
that God is not limited by time and space. God's indwelling
in the world is not necessary, but free. He is not in the world
as a substance, or physical principle, or law, but as a free per
sonal spirit.

(4) Two other words need to be mentioned here — immensity
and eternity. These define God as superior to space and time. By
immensity we do not mean that God is unrelated to space. We
mean rather that God is not a spatially extended being. He is
not confined to or limited by space. Spatially extended objects
and the relations of these objects to each other in space are
seen and known as real to the mind of God. But he is not con
fined in space nor does he include space in himself as if he were
a greater space including a less, a larger circle outside a smaller
one. His immensity means rather that his mode of existence is
not spatial or extended, and that he is not subject to the laws of
space.

(5) In like manner the eternity of God sets forth his relation to
time. God had no beginning and will have no end. He knows
events as taking place in time, but he is not limited by time in any
way. He recognizes some events as past and others as future
in relation to present events. But past, present, and future are
equally known to him. We tell of events one by one as they occur.
God sees all events in a connected whole as if they were one. The
difference has been illustrated by the two ways of seeing a street
procession. If you stand in a doorway on a street, you see it a
little at a time. From the top of a steeple you would see all the
procession at once.

There has been much subtle speculation about time and space

e 1 225 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

among the philosophers since Kant's day. The debate has been
chiefly over the point whether or not objects exist really in time
and space. Some assert and others deny this. Those who deny
claim that space and time are simply subjective forms of human
experience. They hold that we must needs think in terms of
time and space because our minds are so made, not because time
and space are objective realities.

It is not necessary to discuss the point. All that has been said
is true upon any view. Time and space are real to human ex
perience whatever may be true as to their objective reality. All
that has been said as to God's relations to time and space also
remains. For he recognizes them as real forms of human ex
perience while not subject himself to their limitations.

(6) The omniscience of God describes his knowledge. That
God knows all things is implied in his omnipresence. The uni
verse as the expression of God's thought and plan suggests his
omniscience. Instances of prophecy in Scripture indicate his
knowledge of future events. His omniscience is a part of his
spiritual perfection.

a. As to God's method of knowing we may assert several
things. It is immediate, without processes of thinking, of reason
ing, or inference. It is distinct, without vagueness or confusion.
It is complete, including the whole and never a part merely of the
objects of knowledge. It is inclusive and simultaneous, in that
all objects in space and all events in time are direct and immediate
objects of knowledge to him.

b. The extent of God's knowledge has already been indicated.
It is necessary to add the following statements. God knows not
only all actually existent things, but also all future events. He
knows all necessary events due to the operation of physical causes.
The whole course of nature is an open book to him. He knows
also all the free choices of moral and intelligent beings before the
choices are made.

Some have discussed the question whether or not God knows
all possible events. Does he know all the possible choices of
all actual and all possible free beings ? Does he know all the pos-

[226]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

sibilities of all possible worlds? In reply it may be said that
queries of this kind are not particularly valuable or fruitful of
results. It is not necessary for us to suppose that God carries
in his mind the useless knowledge of an infinite number of pos
sible free creatures and physical creations. It is only important
to assert that God's knowledge is without limit, and that it relates
to all objects of knowledge.

He has full knowledge of all things which exist or will exist
actually, and of all possible things or events which are in any
way involved in his thought and plan for the world as he has
made it. There is no need to go beyond this.

c. There are two important questions as to God's omniscience
to be mentioned here. First, does God's foreknowledge of
an event predetermine the event or necessitate its occurrence?
The answer must be in the negative. God's foreknowledge of
the sinful choices of free moral creatures does not predetermine
those choices. If they were predetermined by God as events in
nature are predetermined, they would not be free choices at all.
We can only say that God's general plan included these free
choices. He does not interpose to prevent them. He permits
them in the sense, not of approving them, but of allowing them
to take place, as a part of his general plan.

The second question relates to the possibility of God's fore
knowledge of the free choices of his creatures. If God does not
predetermine in the sense of causing these choices, can he know
them before they take place? Some assert that he cannot thus
know them. A free choice, it is said, is never caused by a chain
of antecedent causes as an event in nature. Hence it cannot be
foreknown even by God himself. Even if God knows the motives
which influence a man in his free choice, this does not neces
sarily bring knowledge of the choice itself, for sometimes men
unexpectedly refuse to be governed by motives which have
previously controlled them.

On the other side, we urge that God does know in advance
the choices of his free creatures. We deny that God derives his
knowledge by reasoning or inference. Hence the question of

[227]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

motives or conditions prior to free choices is not pertinent. God
knows immediately and directly without the need of inference
from antecedent motives. We cannot think of the infinite and
perfect Spirit as devoid of knowledge of his creation in any re
spect. A God without a knowledge of all the choices of his free
creatures would be without power to guide or control the uni
verse. He would have to sit helpless and await the outcome.
Other wills, not his own, would fix the course of events and the
destiny of his creatures. The Scriptures in many forms teach
the omniscience of God in respect to all the acts of all creatures.
The difficulty connected with God's foreknowledge of the free
choices of his creatures is a part of the general problem of
freedom in relation to the divine sovereignty. In some of its
phases that problem is insoluble by us at our present stage of
knowledge. The existence of purpose and the orderly progress
o«f nature and human society from lower to higher stages require
us to assert that an intelligence which knows the end from the
beginning presides over the course of events.

(7) By the omnipotence of God we mean his unlimited power
to do any and all things consistent with his nature and purpose.
That God possesses such power is clearly seen from its mani
festation in many forms in nature. It is also abundantly taught
in the Scriptures.

a. God's omnipotence is manifested in many ways. For one
thing there is no obstacle which he cannot overcome in the
carrying out of his purposes. Again, he has command of all
possible ways and means for doing what he wills. Nor is he
limited as to the use of means. He can act directly without means
in the pursuit of his ends.

b. The universe as we know it is the supreme evidence of God's
omnipotence. In creating, sustaining, and guiding it, God ex
hibits his boundless resources of energy. The universe also shows
God's ability to limit or restrain himself. He chose to make it
as it is rather than otherwise. He chose to make man free and
leave him so. The universe does not exhaust God. There are
always in him reserves of wisdom and power.

[228]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

c. The only limitations in God's power are such as are self-
imposed. He cannot perform acts out of harmony with his nature
and purposes. Nor can he violate the constitution of the world
which he has made. All this is but to say he cannot deny him
self. God cannot lie or do wrong in any way. He cannot make
wrong to be right. He cannot undo what has been done. He
cannot do things which are self-contradictory. He cannot abolish
the laws of mathematics so that two and two would make five.
But all these limitations in God's power are not defects but forms
of perfection. They simply proclaim him as a self-consistent
being. His actions all accord with his nature and his purposes.

2. Moral ^Attributes

(i) Holiness. The most general and inclusive of the moral
attributes of God is holiness. This is often defined as moral
purity, or God's self-affirmation against evil in contradistinction to
his love or self-communication to others. But this definition is
not an adequate expression of the biblical meaning of the word.
In order to understand the biblical usage it is important to keep
in mind the truth that revelation is progressive.

a. There is some obscurity as to the derivation of the He
brew word holy. The most probable view is that it is from
a root which means to cut off, to separate, and hence to exalt.
It thus describes God as a being exalted above men and above
common things. In the earlier Old Testament usage it describes
the divinity or Godhead of Jehovah. The holiness of God means
simply his divinity, or acts which reveal his divinity, in certain pas
sages. (Exod. 15 : n, 13, 17; Isa. 43 : 15; Hosea n : 9; Heb.
3 : 3; Ps. 89 : 18; Isa. i : 4; 12 : 6; 43 : 3.)

Like all important biblical words, however, this one received
new meaning as the revelation proceeded and men grew in knowl
edge. Holiness thus came to mean devoted or separated unto
God, whether applied td things or people. " Ye shall be holy,
for I am holy," was God's word to the covenant people. (Deut.
28 : 9, 10 ; Lev. n : 44; 20 : 26.)

[229]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

As we have said, holiness designated the divinity or Godhead
of Jehovah. We find accordingly that it is connected with any
act of Jehovah, or any attribute wherein his divinity appears. It
is found sometimes in connection with the exercise of his natural
attributes. But usually holiness is the manifestation of the moral
qualities of God. It is thus a general term descriptive of the
moral perfection of God. These moral perfections appeared in
the course of God's dealings with Israel until in the later prophets
we find all the fundamental moral qualities present in the activities
of the " Holy One," or " the Holy One of Israel." 4

In the New Testament the attribute holy is used with refer
ence to God much less frequently than in the Old. But the usage
in the New Testament confirms what has been said as to the com
prehensive meaning of the word. The holiness of God, then, is
his supreme moral excellence in virtue of which all other moral
attributes have their ground in him. Holiness may be defined as
the sum of other moral qualities, or perhaps better still, as their
source and ground.

b. There are three moral attributes central in God which
are grounded in his holiness. These are righteousness, love, and
truth.

Holiness manifests itself in righteousness. The following
passages will make clear the connection between righteousness,
or moral purity, and holiness. In Amos 2 : 7 God's holy name is
profaned by immoral practices. In Isaiah I : 4 the prophet
arraigns the people as a " sinful nation, laden with iniquity,"
because they have " despised the Holy One of Israel." In Isaiah
6 : 3-7 the same ideal of moral purity as required by the holiness
of Jehovah is set forth in the prophet's call to his office. (See
also Hab. I : 12, 13.)

Holiness manifests itself also in the form of love. In Ezekiel
39 : 25 Jehovah declares that he will bring back the captivity of
Jacob because he is " jealous for his holy name." Again, in

4 God is not described as " the holy God " in the Old Testament. But the adjective
is frequently used as a noun, and translated " the holy one." Of course the noun holi
ness frequently appears.

[230]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Ezekiel 36 : 22-31, there is an extended description of the mercies
which Jehovah will bestow upon the people because of his " holy
name.'' In Isaiah 54 : 5 it is declared for the comfort of the
people, " the Holy One of Israel is thy redeemer." These pas
sages might be indefinitely multiplied. In Isaiah and Ezekiel and
elsewhere God's redemptive love is constantly declared to be a
manifestation of his holiness. God's redemptive activity indeed
takes the form of judgment against the nations and salvation
for Israel. In both respects it is " the Holy One of Israel " who
is at work. In the New Testament the holiness of God is repre
sented as the basis of his love. In John 17 : n Jesus prays,
44 Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me."
Thus holiness appears as peculiarly the attribute of God as
Father, and an act of love on God's part appears as a fit ex
pression of his holiness. So also in Luke I : 49 Mary exclaims,
" And holy is his name," in a context wherein the overflowing
mercy and grace of God are praised.

So also is the attribute of truth grounded in the holiness of
God. This comes into view particularly in the New Testament.
In John 17 : 17 Jesus prays to the Father : " Sanctify them in the
truth : thy word is truth." Here the word sanctify has the same
root as that which signifies God's holiness. 'As the Holy One he
makes believers holy by means of truth and in the truth. This
shows how closely truth and holiness are bound together in God's
nature and activity. Again, in i John 2 : 20 are the words, " Ye
have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all things."
In verse 27 again it is declared that this " anointing " gave them
ample knowledge so that "ye need not that any should teach
you." Clearly in these passages the " Holy One " is the source
of truth. In another striking passage the same relation between
truth and holiness appears. In John 14 : 26 Jesus declares that
the Father will send the Comforter to the disciples. But he
further defines the Comforter as "even the Holy Spirit, whom
the Father will send." Then he adds, " he shall teach you all
things."

Thus it appears that the holiness of God, while originally refer-

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

ring to his divinity, came gradually to stand for any manifestation
of that divinity, and through his dealings with his chosen people
it came at length to express especially the moral perfection of God.
We have seen that the three central attributes of moral perfection,
righteousness, love, and truth, are all grounded in the holiness
of God, or are to be regarded as expressions of that holiness. We
have a powerful confirmation of this view in the name which
all the New Testament writers give to the Spirit of God. He is
uniformly called the Holy Spirit. According to New Testament
teaching the Holy Spirit is the transforming inward power, the
principle or law of the spiritual life of Christians. His opera
tions in the hearts of men are inclusive of all phases of Christian
experience. There is no difficulty at all in showing the truth of
these statements. In many passages the moral qualities we have
named, righteousness, love, and truth, are traced to the Holy
Spirit. It is needless to dwell at length upon these passages.
We recall that when Ananias and Sapphira kept back a part of
the price of the land, Peter said that they had lied to the Holy
Spirit. (Acts 5:3.) Certainly righteousness in man is directly
the product of the Holy Spirit. We recall also Paul's expression,
" The love of the Spirit " (Rom. 15 : 30), and the beautiful saying
in Romans 5 : 5 that " the love of God hath been shed abroad
in our hearts through the Holy Spirit." Certainly the Holy Spirit
is the author of love. What we have already seen as to the Holy
Spirit's relation to truth is confirmed by the teaching throughout
the Epistles. Everywhere he is the teacher and guide, the revealer
of truth to men.

We have shown that righteousness, love, and truth are mani
festations of the holiness of God. It is necessary to set forth
the meaning of each of these more fully.

(2)' Righteousness, a. The righteousness of God may be un
derstood better if we note first its meaning as applied to men.
There are various phases in the significance of the word as thus
applied. But the underlying and essential meaning is twofold:
Positively, it means perfectly answering to the requirements of
God; and negatively, free from all defect and taint of character.

[332]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

In a word it means morally pure and free from guilt and stain. In
a man righteousness defines a relation to God and also relations to
other men. We may now define the attribute of righteousness
in God. By righteousness we mean the self-affirmation of God in
favor of the right as opposed to the wrong, the pure as opposed to
the impure. As affirmation it calls into exercise the will of God.
As self-affirmation righteousness is grounded in his nature. As
favoring the pure and right as opposed to the impure and wrong,
righteousness is a part of the moral perfection of God. (See John
17 : 25; Rom. 3 : 21, 26; 2 Tim. 2 : 13; 4 : 8; i John 1:9;
2 : 29; 3 : 7; Rev. 16 : 5. In the Old Testament also, in many
passages: Ps. 51 : 6; 145 : 17; Neh. 9:8; Isa. 34 : 16.)

b. The manifestations of God's righteousness are various. In
general we define them as mandatory, punitive, and redemp
tive. God's mandatory righteousness is expressed in the moral
laws which he prescribes for the conduct of men. Those laws
are stamped upon the moral constitution of men as made in God's
image. They find expression in the Mosaic laws of the Old Tes
tament, especially as given in the Ten Commandments. They are
also seen in the requirements of the higher righteousness of the
New Testament. (Rom. i : 17; 2 : 14-16; 8 : 4; 10 : 5; Gal.
2 : 21 ; Phil. 3:6;! John 2 : 20; 3 : 7; Ps. 119 : 3, 7, 40, 142,
144,164.)

The punitive righteousness of God leads him to administer the
affairs of his kingdom in accordance with strict justice. He
punishes the guilty for their transgressions. His wrath is aroused
by the iniquity of men, and he will mete out to transgressors the
due reward of their sins. (Gen. 18 : 25; Deut. 32 : 4; Rom.
2 : 6-16.)

In addition to the mandatory and punitive righteousness of God
we note also what is best described as his redemptive righteous
ness. By this is meant the exhibition or vindication of his right
eousness in his redeeming activity for men. This is a striking and
most impressive aspect of the divine righteousness set forth only
in the Bible. In the exercise of his redeeming love toward men,
he preserves his self -consistency and the inviolability of his moral

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

law. This appears in several Old Testament passages, as in
Psalm 85 : 10. In the second half of Isaiah especially is God's
redemptive activity for Israel constantly declared to be " in right
eousness." (See Isa. 41 : 2; 45 : 13; 41 : 10, n; 43 : 6; 51 : 5;
42 : 6.) It is not always clear precisely what the phrase means
in these passages. But the general truth appears that in all his
saving work for his people, God operates on principles of right
eousness. Perhaps in these Old Testament passages the prevailing
thought is that of God's fidelity to his promise, his self-consistency
in the execution of a purpose toward Israel.

In the New Testament, however, the redemptive righteousness
of God appears in his moral self-consistency in the redeeming
work of Christ. In Romans 3 : 26 he is declared to be " just "
and " the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." In 2 Corin
thians 5 : 21 Paul says: " Him who knew no sin he made to be
sin on our behalf ; that we might become the righteousness of
God in him." So in I John 1:9," He is faithful and righteous
to forgive us our sins "; and again in I John 2 : i, " If any man
sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the right
eous." All these passages of course relate to the atoning work
of Christ. Our interest in them here is to observe the manner
in which God's righteousness is bound up with his redeeming
love for men. The interests of righteousness are never neglected
in God's pursuit of his redeeming purpose.

c. The relation of God's righteousness to his nature may now be
noted. The chief point at issue is whether the moral law is to be
traced merely to the will of God, or is the expression of his nature.
Is a command right because God wills it, or is it right because
God is what he is? Beyond a doubt the Scriptures favor the
latter view. Of course whatever God wills is right. But the
prior question is why his will commands one particular act as
right and forbids another as wrong.

We mention three considerations which justify the statement
that righteousness is grounded in the nature rather than in the
will of God. (a) The first is a fact of psychology. A man's will
is a function of his nature. Men are indeed free in the exercise

[234]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

of their wills. They are self-determined. They are autonomous
beings. But the will never acts independently of the nature since
it is a part of the nature. As in man, so also in God, the will is
the expression of the nature, (b) The second consideration is
ethical. The only permanent and satisfactory ground of ethics is
to be found in the divine nature. Utility, happiness, the pursuit
of pleasure in its lower or higher forms, for the individual or so
ciety, can never constitute an adequate explanation or ground of
moral obligation. Moral obligation grounded in mere utility would
thereby cease to be moral obligation. Its distinctive element as
moral would be wanting. It would have little power to grip men
and hold them stedfast in their loyalty to the moral ideal. It
could never explain the higher forms of human loyalty to those
ideals, (c) The third consideration is the teaching of Scripture.
Here there are several points to be noted. The first is that
God is declared by Jesus to be the only being who is absolutely
good : " None is good save one, even God " (Mark 10 : 18). The
second is that man's relation to God is determined by what God
is: "Ye shall be holy; for I am holy" (i Peter I : 16). The
third point is that moral perfection in man is grounded in moral
perfection in God. Jesus said, " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as
your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5 : 48). Finally, it is
declared that our moral transformation is due to the fact that
we have " become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped
from the corruption that is in the world by lust " (2 Peter I : 4).
It thus appears that our relation to God as his redeemed people,
our moral attainments, and our renewed moral nature, are all
grounded in the nature of God who alone is the absolute good.
All these considerations unite to establish the view that righteous
ness is grounded in the nature and not merely in the will of
God.

(3) Love. In the New Testament revelation through Christ
we obtain the only sufficient definition of the love of God. God's
love appears in many ways in his dealings with Israel in the Old
Testament. There are certain passages in the Psalms, Isaiah, and
elsewhere in the Old Testament, in which the love of God is

[235]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

described in terms of exquisite power and beauty. (E. g., Exod.
34 : 6, 7; Ps. 33 : 5; 119 : 64; 145 : 7-9; Isa. 45 : 8; 61 : n.)
But the complete revelation comes only in Jesus Christ.

Love may be defined as the self -imparting quality in the divine
nature which leads God to seek the highest good and the most
complete possession of his creatures. Love in its highest form is
a relation between intelligent, moral, and free beings. God's love
to man seeks to awaken a responsive love of man to God. In its
final form love between God and man will mean their complete
and unrestrained self-giving to each other, and the complete pos
session of each by the other.

It is impossible to state in an exhaustive way all the contents
of the idea of God's love in Scripture. The following statements
give a general outline.

a. Love is grounded in the nature of God. The supreme utter
ance of the New Testament regarding God's love is that in I John
4 : 8: " God is love." In Matthew 6 : r-8 and 25-32 God's love
is described in terms of Fatherhood. In Matthew u : 25ff. God's
peculiar relation as Father to Jesus the Son is set forth. In
John 17 : 24 Jesus declares that the Father loved him before the
foundation of the world. This is the immanent love of God which
finds its object in the Godhead itself. God is eternally love be
cause there is an eternal object of love. His love is not con
ditioned upon the temporal and finite, although in these objects
his love finds a sphere for its exercise.

b. God's love desires the supreme good of its object. This
statement scarcely needs extended proof. It lies on the surface
in all the references to God's love in the New Testament. He
desires to seek and to save those who are lost. He seeks to re
claim those who wander from him. He strives to create the
conditions of fellowship with himself in the hearts of the re
deemed. He strives to enlarge their capacities for his love and
grace. He cleanses and purges them by discipline and trial
that they may become morally pure. He seeks to produce in men
the conditions of a perfect society founded upon love to God
and a corresponding love to man. He seeks as the goal of his

[236]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

dealings with men that they be worthy of admission into eternal
fellowship with himself and into blessedness through Christ in
his eternal kingdom.

It thus appears that the love of God is not merely amiable
good will or moral indifference. Love exacts the highest from
us because it is love. If God's love should let us off with what
is below our possibilities in moral attainment, it would leave
room for us to reproach love at the end. God's love will leave
no room for any of its objects to reproach it in the final retro
spect. He loves us too well to be content with anything but the
best there is in us. Hence the system of means by which in this
life he seeks our moral and spiritual development.

c. God's love desires to possess its objects. In the Old Testa
ment the covenant between God and Israel was the basis of all
God's dealings with his people. The meaning of the covenant
was that God possessed Israel and Israel possessed God. The
relation was sometimes described as like that between father and
son, and sometimes as like that of husband and wife. Hence
the statement so frequent in the Old Testament that God is a
" jealous" God. (Exod. 20 : 5 ; 34 : 14; Deut. 4 : 24; Isa. 54 :
5; 62 : 5; Hosea 2 : 19.) Of course the word "jealous" as
applied to God has none of the evil meaning connected with it
in common usage. It is simply an intense assertion of God's
moral claim and right to the exclusive possession of his people.

In the New Testament God's desire to possess the objects of
his love appears in many ways. In a notable passage the apostle
Paul says to Christian believers, " all things are yours, and ye
are Christ's, and Christ is God's." Again he sets forth the same
relation thus : " Ye are not your own, ye are bought with a price.
Therefore glorify God in your bodies" (i Cor. 6 : 19, 20). In
the seventeenth chapter of John the possession of believers by
the Father and the Son and the wonderful relations of intimacy
are set forth in terms of great beauty and tenderness.

d. God's love acts in behalf of its object. This appears through
out the Old and the New Testaments. We need only emphasize
here the supreme expression of God's love in the incarnation,

r 237 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

life, and death of Jesus Christ. Christ is the only interpreter of
the Father to men. For this end he came into the world. " God
so loved the world that he gave his only Son" (John 3 : 16).
God spared not his own Son. (Rom. 8 : 32.) God set forth his
Son to be a propitiation for the sins of men. (Rom. 3 : 25.)

The perfection of God's love is seen in the redeeming activity
of Christ in a threefold way: (a) In his capacity for sacrifice.
It brings God very near to us when we realize that there is, as it
were, a human element in him. Our capacity for sacrifice is but
an element in our likeness to God. (Eph. 5 : 2.) (b) In the
degree of the love of which this sacrifice was the expression. He
gave the supreme object of his love, " his only Son " (John
3 : 16). (c) In the resourcefulness of God's love in the effort to
bless. The incarnation is a mark of perfection, not of defect and
limitation in God. It shows that he was equal to the demands of
the situation brought about by man's transgression and consequent
need and helplessness.

Men have sometimes objected to the view that God can suffer.
But his capacity for suffering is a necessary element in his capacity
for sacrifice. If Jesus Christ who suffered was God manifest in
the flesh, then the divine Being can suffer. Christ did not bring
us knowledge of an absentee God who sits apart unmoved as he
contemplates human suffering. He revealed rather a God of
sympathy who came into human life and who has capacity to suffer
with and for us. The love which brings our redemption is a love
which expresses the highest and deepest sympathy. Sympathy
means the capacity of suffering with another because of identi
fication with another. This God possesses in the highest possible
degree. God's saving love is not a love which cost God nothing.
It was the highest conceivable form of voluntary sacrifice. This
point may be made clear by a glance at the possible degrees of
sacrifice. First, we may note unconscious sacrifice. Vegetable
life yields itself up to sustain the animal life above it. Secondly,
there is instinctive sacrifice. The Mexican thrush will fly into
the mouth of a snake which threatens her young. There are many
beautiful forms of instinctive sacrifice among the lower animals.

[238]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Thirdly, there is involuntary sacrifice among men. We are often
involved in the sufferings of others against our wills. The unity
and solidarity of the race bring this upon us. Fourthly, there is
free and voluntary sacrifice for the good of others. This is sacri
fice in its highest form. God's self-giving for human redemp
tion is of this kind. The incarnation and atonement are the
supreme revelation of the heart of God. It was sacrifice freely
chosen and deliberately carried out to redeem men. The repro
duction in men of this kind of free and voluntary sacrifice is the
central aim and choicest fruit of the gospel.

e. God's love manifests itself in various ways, according to
the character and conditions of its objects. A number of terms
have been employed to express this variety. When God's love
terminates upon an object which meets his approval, it is the
love of complacency. When it takes the form of good will toward
all creatures, regardless of moral character, it is the love of
benevolence. When its object is in distress, it is the love of
compassion. When there is a relation of special intimacy between
God's love and its object, it is the love of affection. When it goes
out toward the guilty, it takes the form of mercy. Mercy alone,
however, does not express the fulness of God's love to the sin
ful. In the New Testament this love is called grace. Mercy
is the withholding of penalty, the pardoning of the transgressor.
Grace goes farther and bestows all positive good. Mercy and
grace are the negative and positive aspects of love toward the
sinful. Mercy takes the bitter cup of penalty and pain from the
hand of the guilty and empties it. Grace fills it to the brim with
blessings. Mercy spares the object; grace claims it for its own.
Mercy rescues from peril; grace imparts a new nature and be
stows a new standing. Mercy is God's love devising a way of
escape. Grace is the same love devising ways of transforming
its object into the divine likeness and enabling it to share the
divine blessedness.

/. God's love is inclusive of all mankind. There is a certain
particularism in both the Old and New Testaments which has
led some to lose sight of the universality of God's love. Israel

[ 239 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

was the chosen people and peculiar treasure of Jehovah. The elect
in Christ are the special objects of God's favor in the New Testa
ment. But the particularism in both cases is a stage toward a
wider universalism in God's plan. This may be briefly shown in
the following way.

(a) As to the case of Israel in the Old Testament, two points
will make the matter clear, (aa) In the call of Abraham and the
founding of the commonwealth of Israel the universal blessing
of mankind was the expressed purpose and plan of God. A part
of the promise in Genesis 12 : 1-3 was, " In thee shall all the
families of the earth be blessed." (bb) In the later prophets,
when the nation has gone into captivity, the teaching is that Israel
is to fulfil her mission by becoming the prophet nation. She is
to teach all other people the truth as to Jehovah. This is seen in
such passages as Isaiah 49 : 1-6. Jehovah makes Israel's mouth
like a " sharp sword," and Israel is like a " polished shaft." This
is followed (ver. 6) by the promise, " I will give thee for a light
to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end
of the earth." There are many similar passages in the later
prophets.

(b) In like manner the electing love of God in the New Testa
ment is a step in the realization of God's plan for the whole
world. Here we need only refer to the Great Commission in
Matthew 28 : 19, 20; to the comprehensive universality of God's
love in John 3 : 16; to Paul's teaching in the eleventh chapter of
Romans, that the salvation of the Gentiles was bound up in the
calling of Israel; and to his teaching in Ephesians (3 : 6) and
elsewhere, that the " mystery " of the gospel, which had been
hidden, but was now made known, was the great fact that Gen
tiles are to share in the blessings of the gospel.

(4) Truth. By the truth of God we designate the quality in
him by virtue of which he is the source and ground of all forms
of knowing, and all objects of knowledge. God's perfect knowl
edge of all things we have already described as omniscience.
God's knowledge of himself is the exact expression of his nature
as truth. His knowledge arises out of his nature. So also all

[240]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

forms of knowing in created beings are grounded in the truth as
it inheres in God's nature. Again, all objects of knowledge are
constituted as knowable to us by their derivation from him.

Two conclusions follow from the preceding definition. The
first is that there is no standard of truth outside of God. He is
himself the ultimate reality of truth as of other forms of being.
The second is that truth is truth, not because God wills it merely.
God wills truth because he is true. Being conditions will. What
he wills he wills freely, but to will freely is also to will truly.
He cannot will falsehood or error or sin or self-contradictory
things. This is because he is truth.

All spheres of the truth are grounded in God's nature as truth.
Nature at every level is a realm of truth. Mechanical nature
is the lowest level. Biological nature is the next stage. Sentient
nature is the next, and the rational moral nature of man is the
highest known to us. As all these spheres of creation are con
stituted in truth, we have the sciences in an ascending scale.
There are the mathematical, biological, and moral sciences, and
the science of comparative religion, and many others. These
sciences or forms of knowledge are possible to us for two
reasons. One is that we are constituted for truth; the other,
that these spheres of knowledge are constituted in truth. Our
capacity to know and their capacity for being known are both
grounded in God, who is truth.

Out of God's nature as truth arise his veracity and faithful
ness and wisdom. Veracity in God relates to what he says. God
speaks only truth. His messages to us are always in accord
with his own nature, and with the nature of created things. The
truths revealed to us in nature are consistent with each other. In
like manner the truths revealed in Scripture are a self-consistent
whole. It is, of course, necessary for us to use our intelligence
in interpreting nature and the Bible. But when we find God's
messages to us in these, they are all in accord with each other,
and with his own eternal truth.

By the faithfulness of 'God we express his fidelity to his prom
ises and his unswerving loyalty to his own nature. He does not

[241]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

raise expectations in the realm of nature or grace which he will
not fulfil. He completes what he begins. He does not change
his purposes or take back his promises.

The wisdom of God designates his knowledge and choice of
the best possible ends and the best possible means for the real
ization of his ends. At certain points in nature and in his dealings
with men he seems to be making experiments, as if he were
trying out different ways of doing things. But properly under
stood, these are simply stages in the unfolding of his larger pur
poses. They are the necessary steps in his progress toward a
goal. His wisdom is never at a loss for the best means for
the attainment of the highest ends.

Many practical considerations arise from what has been said
as to the attribute of truth in God.

a. In virtue of his truth God's personality is manifest. Truth
is a meaningless term as applied to an impersonal force or energy
or influence. Things have meaning only to personal beings. If
God has meaning for us, or for himself, it is because he is a
person and because we are persons.

b. The attribute of truth in God gives meaning to the concep
tion of error. One statement is true and its opposite false be
cause the world has a definite constitution. The various parts of
created being cohere in particular ways. They are subject to
uniform laws. These laws owe their origin to God, who is truth.
Error in thought or speech is departure from reality in the con
stitution of man or nature or God.

c. Again, the attribute of truth in God gives rise to an element
of knowledge in faith. Some have held that faith is the antithesis
of knowledge. They have said, " We have but faith, we may not
know " in things pertaining to God. This position is untenable.
It is not difficult to perceive the reason why. Faith or trust joins
us to God. Through this union God manifests himself to us.
Since God is truth, his self-manifestation to us involves the
communication of truth to us. Above all, God's revelation of
himself to us in Christ is a communication of knowledge, " the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge " (Col. 2:3).

[242]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

d. The attribute of truth in God also makes inevitable the
element of doctrine in man's religious life. There is always the
peril that doctrines as intellectual systems may supplant vital
faith. Theology when held as a mere logical or philosophical
system may be hurtful to the religious life. We should not con
found religion with theology. But it is equally absurd to at
tempt to maintain a strong religious life without doctrines. Re
ligion has to do with facts about God and man, and the relations
between God and man. Doctrines are simply the expression of
the meaning of these facts and relations. Hence the two elements
which are so conspicuous in the Bible. It is at once a book of
life and a book of doctrines or teachings about life. Here again
the explanation is found in the fact that God is truth. All
true statements of doctrine are grounded in the nature of God,
and doctrines inevitably arise in religion because God is a being
of truth.

5. The Attributes and the Divine Personality

Men have often thought of the nature and attributes of God
in a manner too abstract and mechanical. God is a person. .JTis
attributes are the qualities of his being as personal. They are

-,,••-— !• r i — . i tj *. V •"-*- -.iV.-. -WVT* -^HIBT*^ ^ >,. v*w*/-*^vj. -,•>.-.

not attached to him from without as if they were separate from
his}nature. They are not independent of each other as if one
could be active without the others. They are not in conflict with
each other as if there could be schism in the divine nature. There
are not gradations among the attributes as if there could be
a hierarchy of powers within God himself. It is possible to think
of the attributes as if there were many gods rather than one
God.

Let us keep in mind the truth that God is a unitary being, har
monious in all his qualities. When God feels, his feeling is
qualified by his righteousness and his omniscience. When he
thinks, he thinks righteously, truthfully, lovingly. When he wills,
he wills according to infinite wisdom, love, and truth. When he
punishes the guilty or redeems the lost, he has respect for every
quality of his being. He never suspends the operation of his

[ 243 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

love, nor of his righteousness. But each is exercised according
to the character and circumstances of the object.

Errors to be Avoided

If we keep in mind what has just been said as to the unity and
harmony of God's attributes, we may avoid several errors :

The error of merging the attributes of God in one attribute.

The error of making one attribute superior to all others.

The error of thinking of the attributes as in conflict with
each other.

The error of attributing to God arbitrary or capricious or
whimsical action of the will.

We discuss these four points briefly.

(1) We consider first the error of merging all the attributes in
some one attribute. Here we leave out of consideration the holi
ness of God. For, as already shown, holiness is a term descriptive
of the moral perfection of God rather than a separate attribute.

Some make love the all-inclusive attribute of God and reduce
all the others to some form of love. Again, righteousness, or
God's self-affirming quality, is made inclusive of all others.
There is no gain and much loss in efforts of this kind. The
Scriptures afford no warrant for them. It is highly confusing
to define love as God's self-imparting and righteousness as his
self -affirming attribute, and then at once proceed to identify the
one with the other. The very object of defining the attributes of
God is to set forth the manifold riches of the divine nature. The
thought of God grows pale and distant when we pass from
definite and concrete descriptions of his nature to abstract and
vague terms in which all the elements of his being are reduced
to one.

(2) The second error to be avoided is that of making one at
tribute superior to all others. Here the attributes remain, but
an effort is made to define them in an ascending order of im
portance. It will be sufficient for our purposes if we notice the
controversy as to the relative places of love and righteousness

[244]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

among the moral attributes. Some would make love, and others
righteousness, the most fundamental attribute of God. Now it is
possible to present arguments for either view, based upon a
partial use of facts and of Scripture texts which seem conclusive.
In favor of the view that love is the fundamental attribute, we
are reminded that Jesus makes love to God and man the sum of
human obligation; that Paul places love above all other Chris
tian graces ; that John declares that " God is love," and in general
that the incarnation and atonement of Christ are the revelation of
the nature of God as essentially love.

In favor of the view that righteousness is fundamental, our
attention is called to such passages as Psalm 97 : 2, where " right
eousness and justice are the foundation of his throne"; to the
operations of our own consciences, which are supreme over
other impulses of our nature; to the fact that God's righteous
ness limits and controls the exercise of his love ; to the moral
necessity in the divine nature which was met in the atonement of
Christ ; and to the inexorable justice of God's dealings with man
kind in the course of human history.

It is not possible to establish either of these two views. The
correct statement is that righteousness and love are coordinate
and equal attributes of God. There is no sufficient ground for
placing either above the other. This will appear if we notice
briefly the replies to the arguments in favor of giving the primacy
to righteousness.

a. It is urged that righteousness is fundamental because the
Scriptures make it more prominent than love. But we have al
ready noted the prominence given to love also in the New Tes
tament. Special attention is called to the passage in the book
of Revelation where the heavenly beings exclaim, " Holy, holy,
holy, is the Lord God Almighty" (Rev. 4:8). It is argued
from this that in heaven holiness is regarded as the chief attribute
of God. But in reply we need only remember our explanation
of the biblical meaning of holiness as applied to God. It does
not mean righteousness as distinguished from love. In both the
Old and the New Testaments it is a general term descriptive

[ 245 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the moral perfection of God. In some cases righteousness is
prominent, in others love, and in yet others the truth of God is
in view when the term is employed. Sometimes no one attribute
is conspicuous, but rather the perfection of God in general. This
is true of the passage before us. The term is applied to God be
cause he created all things, and because he is the God " who was
and who is and who is to come." There is no passage of Scrip
ture which warrants us in subordinating love to righteousness or
righteousness to love.

b. Again, the supremacy of righteousness over love is argued
from the supremacy of conscience in ourselves. But surely we
are not warranted in inferring what is normal in God's character
from the abnormal state of our own. We are tainted and warped
by sin and guilt. The sting of conscience attends our struggle for
perfection all along the way. Conscience rings the alarm-bell so
constantly because we so often do wrong. Of course we may
deduce the righteousness of God from conscience. But we can
not deduce from our own spiritual life the relations between
righteousness and love in him until we have made greater prog
ress in love ourselves. When we are perfected in righteous love,
our own nature may be a better guide to the relations between
the two attributes in God.

c. It is argued further that love is optional, but that right
eousness or justice is obligatory with God. The statement is,
" God may be merciful, he must be just." In reply we say that
the argument confounds love as a divine attribute with mercy,
a particular form of its manifestation. Mercy is love expressing
itself in forgiveness and remission of penalty from the guilty.
But love is good will toward all creatures and the desire to bless
them. The exercise of mercy is conditioned upon the repentance
of the sinner. But God's good will toward all creatures is con
ditioned upon nothing outside his own nature. As we have seen,
God's love is grounded in his nature. If he ceased to love, he
would cease to be God. We may admit that mercy is optional
with God, therefore, without admitting that love is optional.
Love manifests itself in a variety of ways according to the cir-

[246]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

cumstances of its object. But the principle of love in the divine
nature, the desire to bless, never ceases its activity. Men, by
their rebellion, may prevent its taking certain forms, such as
mercy and forgiveness, but they cannot destroy it. If love were
optional with God, we might conceive of him as dealing in a
perfectly loveless way with the un fallen and pure angels. But
such a conception would bring him to a level far below that of
the God revealed to us in Christ.

d. Again, it is argued that the righteousness of God is an
attribute of being, while benevolence is an attribute of action.
The conclusion is drawn that if righteousness or justice should
cease to be exercised, it would cease to exist, while benevolence
might or might not be exercised according to circumstances. The
reply is that here -again the error is committed of taking a mani
festation of love for the attribute of love. Love is as truly an
attribute of being as righteousness. The exercise of both toward
intelligent and free creatures must always be understood in the
light of the attitude of those creatures toward God. Toward the
morally perfect creature justice is quiescent, and love is com
placent, but intensely active. Toward the guilty justice may be
restrained while love seeks to redeem ; or love may be under re
straint and justice flame forth when iniquity is ripe. But whether
God's action take the form of mercy or justice, God's attributes
of love and righteousness remain the same.

e. Again, it is urged that righteousness is superior to love
because love requires a norm or standard, while righteousness does
not. This is the claim that love must act with reference to some
thing other than itself, that is, righteousness ; whereas righteous
ness is its own standard. But this position is also without ade
quate support. It carries with it the notion that God's attributes
are parts which may be held together or taken apart. It is true
that love always acts with reference to righteousness. Love is
not an independent or detachable quality in God. But this is also
true of righteousness. There is no conceivable act of right
eousness or justice on God's part unaffected by his love. He is
not two Gods, who stand forth at one time as righteousness and

[247]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

at another as love. He is always righteous love, or loving right
eousness. Love and righteousness are both ascribed to God in
his supreme manifestation as Father by the Lord Jesus in John
17 : 25, where he addresses God in the words, " O righteous
Father."

/. It is also urged that righteousness is superior to love be
cause it controls in the exercise of love in the atonement of
Christ. It is insisted that since it was a demand in the divine
nature that must be met by the atonement, and since in his eter
nal purpose God planned to meet that demand, we must hold
that righteousness outranks love in God's nature.

But this is an arbitrary placing of one attribute above another.
It was God's love which prompted the atonement. His desire to
bless and save is the ruling motive throughout the incarnation
and atonement of Christ. It might with equal reason be urged
that love is superior to righteousness in God because the love
which provided the atonement overcame the justice which de
manded the punishment of sinners.

It is quite possible to argue the case either way with equal
plausibility. If the Judge descends from the bench to become
Redeemer, is he not greater as Redeemer than he is as Judge?
Or we might ask, if the Judge carries the bench with him, as it
were, in redeeming, is he not greater as Judge than as Redeemer?
As a matter of fact, neither question can be answered correctly
in the affirmative. For if God both requires and makes atone
ment, how can we exalt him above himself in either respect?
We conclude then that righteousness and love are coordinate and
equal attributes in God. Love is as exacting as righteousness be
cause it cannot endure the presence in its object of the sin which
injures and mars it. Righteousness is as patient and forbearing
as love in God, because only by a slow process of cleansing can
the moral ideal be realized.

Love is the sinner's fear as well as righteousness, because love
can only repudiate the sin to which the rebellious heart cleaves.
Righteousness is the sinner's hope as well as love because the goal
of a perfect character and final bliss can only be attained by the

[248]

The God of Our Lord Jesus Christ

extirpation of sin from his character. Gerald Stanley Lee has
said : 5 " God is love, and law is the way he loves us. But it is
true also that God is law, and love is the way he rules us."

(3) The third error which arises from failure to recognize that
God is a unitary Being harmonious in all his attributes, is that
of thinking of the attributes as in conflict with each other. What
has been said about righteousness and love as exemplified in the
atonement shows that we are not to imagine God as divided
against himself, his righteousness being on one side and his love on
the other. There are those who, by means of caricature, have
sought to make the atonement objectionable. Some have even
charged that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented to explain
the atonement. God was on one side and Christ on the other.
The Holy Spirit came in as the reconciler and harmonizer. This
is mere caricature of the New Testament teaching. Christ did
not purchase God's love for us by what he did. What he did was
the expression of God's love. God's love was the cause, not the
effect of the atonement. " God so loved the world " that he
gave his Son. The atonement of Christ was the harmonious
expression of both the love and the righteousness of God.

(4) A fourth error to be avoided is that of attributing to God
arbitrary or capricious or whimsical action of the will. It has
often been the fashion in abstract systems of theology to exalt
the sovereignty of God by attributing all sorts of mysterious and
arbitrary actions to him on the ground of his " mere good
pleasure.'* The phrase, "the mere good pleasure of God," is
misleading unless duly qualified. No one objects to the thought
of God's sovereignty if it is understood that it is a righteous and
loving sovereignty. But when his " mere good pleasure " is de
tached from these qualities of his being we have the picture of
an Oriental tyrant, not of an infinitely wise Father. The sover
eignty of God is a doctrine of priceless value. It would be fatal
to surrender it. But we should avoid thinking of it as a sover
eignty of sheer will. God is far more than a predestinating om
nipotence. The best of reasons and motives are behind all his

B " The Shadow Christ," p. 38.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

actions. He is a unitary Being, who is a Person, and in him all
forms of perfection meet and are harmonized.

At this point we reach the highest possible conception of God.
It is that presented to us in the revelation of Jesus Christ. It is
the radiant image of God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven
and earth. In this supreme revelation of God all other valid
conceptions unite. Christ combined the scattered bits of truth
about God, like fragments wrought into a mosaic. But he added
his own distinctive revelation. The thought of God as first cause
leaves us cold. The thought of God as a personaj^being warms
us a little. The thought of him as a personal being with a
holy purpose stirs us more deeply. The thought of this personal
being as one who cares for us individually, numbering the very
hairs of our heads, grips us mightily. But when all these thoughts
are combined, and the first cause who is personal, and purposive,
and holy, and individualizing, and loving, is recognized also as
an infinite and mighty and gracious Father, all the joy-bells of
the heart begin to ring. Now it was to reveal such a God that
Christ came.

If we would avoid error in thinking of the attributes of God,
four things are necessary : First, that we conceive of righteousness,
love, and truth, not as abstractions, but as qualities which are
unified and harmonized in an infinite person ; secondly, that this
person is the glorious God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ;
and thirdly, that in his dealings with men he has respect to
them as free moral beings ; and fourthly, that in himself he does
not change, whatever be the necessary variation of manifestation
due to the circumstances and actions of his free creatures.

250]

CHAPTER X
CREATION

I. DEFINITION

Y creation is meant all that exists which is not God. This
includes nature and man and all other forms of being other
than God himself. The problem of creation is one of the
most difficult of all those with which the unaided reason of man
deals. Modern physical science has given it acute form in its
doctrine of the transformation of energy. Everything in physical
nature is the transformed result of something prior in the causal
series. The outcome is an endless regress of physical causes.
Through it we never rise to a spiritual cause.

At this point is seen clearly the contrast (though not contra
diction) between the method of physical science and that of re
ligion and theology. In the former causation is expressed in
terms of matter and energy; in the latter, in terms of spirit,
freedom, and personality. The difference between physical and
free causation must be held clearly in mind.

The Christian doctrine of creation, then, is not dependent
on the conclusions of physical science as these may relate to the
origin of the universe. It begins rather with the new spiritual
creation of God in Christ in the redemptive experience of Chris
tians, and finds it easy to accept the Scripture teaching that God
created all things. In our religious experience we know ourselves
as dependent on God. We know our new life in Christ to be
derived from him. We know him as spiritual Creator and our
selves as " new creatures " in Christ. We know physical nature
as adapted to promote our spiritual life under God's guidance.
We see in nature the evidence of progress toward a goal and
end. In man we see the crown of nature. In Christ and his
kingdom we see the spiritual end of God in creation. From
these things we infer that the universe is dependent on God ;

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

that he brought it into being and preserves it for his own spiritual
and holy purpose. In other words, the Christian does not pursue
the physical series of causes and effects, nor the philosophical
series of logical concepts, to prove that God created the universe.
He rather pursues the personal and spiritual series given in the
religious experience of men.

The latter, however, finds strong confirmation in the scientific
and rational processes. Science confirms the view especially if we
consider the development hypothesis. Its distinctive mark is
progress from lower to higher forms. This progress implies pur
pose. At the beginning, the middle, and the end this purpose im
plies a divine Creator of the world. At the beginning, because
the downward steps into the past carry us to a beginning in
time for the first and lowest stage of the process. Physical
science expressly precludes a self-originated beginning of all
things. Hence a Creator is needed. The middle of the process
calls for a guide and Creator since the material of the universe
is used at every stage for an end above and beyond present at
tainment. It is thus dependent on a beginning through an intel
ligent Creator. The end implies creation, because beginnings
can only be understood in the light of endings. The outcome
reveals the hidden purpose of the origin. If a spiritual kingdom
of free persons living together in eternal bonds of righteous love
is the goal to which the entire movement leads up, then that king
dom was the primary purpose of the whole. The complete de
pendence of the spiritual kingdom on the grace of God in Christ
carries us back, therefore, to his creative act as the source and
origin of all things.

The logical and philosophical process also confirms the view.
The reason calls for an uncaused cause of all things, which
nature never yields. The human will suggests the only solution.
The will of man is in a relative sense an originating cause, and
from it we infer a spiritual first cause who brought the universe
into being.

We may sum up the Christian doctrine of creation, then, in the
following statements : First, the universe, while distinct from God,

[252]

Creation

originated in his act and is dependent upon him. Secondly, in
creating the universe God acted freely and not under necessity
or compulsion. Thirdly, in creating the universe God had in
view a moral and spiritual end. Fourthly, the end of God was
the communication of his own life and blessedness to created
beings. His supreme desire was to make vast spaces for the
habitation of sentient and intelligent beings; to people these
spaces with such beings, and to fill them with the life and holi
ness, the" blessedness and peace of his own nature. His end was
to produce a kingdom in which his own image should be re
flected, in which his own glory should appear. Fifthly, the end
thus defined was an end begun, carried forward, and to be com
pleted in Jesus Christ. (See Col. I : 15-17; Eph. 1:3-5; Rom.
8 : 21.)

II. OPPOSING VIEWS

Several theories have been proposed as against the view that
God called the universe into being by his creative act.

1. A brief reference may be made to the theory that matter
alone is eternal and that all forms of mental and spiritual life
are derived from matter. This is materialism and is rapidly
passing away as a philosophic theory. It ignores all the most
significant elements of being, mind and will and conscience in
man. It has failed in every attempt to show that mind is derived
from matter. It takes the lowest form of existence and sup
poses that the highest are derived therefrom. It is directly con
trary to all moral progress and religious and spiritual aspirations
among men.

2. The second to be noticed is dualism. It holds that there are
two eternal and self -existent principles, God and matter. God
did not create matter, but used it for his ends. This theory arises
out of the difficulty of conceiving how God could bring matter
into existence. There are several serious objections to it. One
is that it is a self-contradictory view. Two absolute or eternal
existences cannot be held together satisfactorily in our thought.
The mind carries in itself a fundamental demand for ultimate

1 253 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

unity. Another objection is that the view does not explain
how God ever comes into relations with the eternally existent
matter. If it existed eternally apart from him, how did he ever
come to possess power over it? A third objection is that matter
in all the forms known to us, is stamped with the marks of
intelligence. Idealism has emphasized this fact. We know of no
form of matter which could form a basis for belief in any origin
other than in the will of an intelligent creator. A fourth objec
tion is that dualism increases rather than decreases the difficulties
of the mind in trying to conceive of creation. It multiplies prob
lems. If it is difficult to think of God as self-existent, how
much more difficult to think of a self -existent matter without in
telligence or will? The mind inevitably gravitates to the view
that the highest thing we know, intelligent and free personality,
is the only sufficient clue to the origin of all things.

3. A third theory is that the universe is an emanation from God.
In its older form, as held by the Gnostics in the early Christian
centuries, we need not consider it. In its more recent forms,
it is either pantheistic as with Spinoza, or idealistic as held by
Hegel and some of his successors. Spinoza conceived God
as the one eternal substance, and extension and thought as its at
tributes. Hegel conceived him as an absolute being of whom all
finite appearances are merely phases. A logical process is the
immanent principle of development. Both the Spinozan and
Hegelian views are monistic. God and the universe are one.

The objections to the view in either form are very serious.
It takes away freedom from God, because the universe is con
ceived 0as the necessary unfolding of a principle in the divine
nature. It ignores the radical differences between matter and
spirit and fails to harmonize them. It makes God the author
of evil, because evil remains an essential phase of the process of
development. It destroys human freedom, personality, and im
mortality, because man is merely a passing phase of a logical
process which will be transcended in the course of time. In
short, necessity rules at every stage of the process and the whole
moral and personal realm collapses. All this is in direct conflict

[254]

Creation

with the deliverances of our own moral consciousness and of
our Christian experience.

4. A fourth theory of the origin of the universe is that it is the
eternal creation of God. The difficulty of explaining why God
should have remained idle through an eternity before beginning
to create has led to the view. But the objections are greater
than the supposed advantages. It tends toward the necessitarian
conception whereby God is supposed not to create freely, but
by necessity; or else it tends to the theory of the eternity of
matter. It is impossible, indeed, to conceive in a satisfying man
ner the relations between time and eternity. But this theory does
not succeed in doing so better than others. We cannot lift the
universe out of time because we know it only as subject to tem
poral conditions. We cannot conceive it as independent because,
in all the phases in which we know it, it is dependent. It is
best to interpret it in view of the data of our own experience of
it and not in an abstract way to meet hypothetical difficulties.
As God's free act, with a moral end in view, we can think of the
creation of the universe in a manner satisfactory to faith, since in
our own experience of him we know ourselves as his new creation,
dependent upon his gracious and free action in Christ.

III. THE CREATION OF MAN

We cannot understand creation except by viewing it as a whole.
Man is its crown and goal. Looking forward from the last stage
prior to man we should expect man to appear. Looking back
ward from man we can best explain the earlier stages. Science
and Scripture agree remarkably in placing man at the end of the
series of gradations in nature. All the lower stages precede man
in the account of Genesis. According to science, man sums
up all the past in himself and then goes far beyond all lower
stages. Man was not, therefore, an afterthought, but a fore
thought of God. In man creation attains a moral and spiritual
level. We thus infer that the lower stages were designed to serve
the ends of the higher.

[2551

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

In view of the above we are warranted in making the follow
ing assertions about man :

i. He consists of a physical and spiritual part, body and soul.
As to the physical, he possesses a body in many respects like the
bodies of the lower animals. Some Christian evolutionists inter
pret the Genesis account of the creation of man as implying that
the human body was derived from the lower animals, while the
soul was God's direct creation. In Genesis 2 : 7 we read, " And
Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life." Here was the use of a means
in creating the body, and an immediate and direct act in creating
the soul.

Two or three remarks may be made as to this matter. The
first is that for the Christian religion the vital point is that man
is God's creation. He is not the product of material elements.
This is placed beyond all doubt by the Genesis account. The
second remark is that there are at least two difficulties in sup
posing an animal origin for man's body. One is the wide chasm
between the human brain and that of the highest animals below
man. Certainly no known skull of these animals can accom
modate the human brain. The other difficulty is in the necessary
relation between the brain formation and the indwelling mind.
The relation is most intimate in human development from infancy
to manhood. It seems most natural to think it has always been
so. To take an animal brain and put into it a human mind seems
to be an impossible proceeding. The later phase of the evolu
tionary hypothesis known as the mutation theory is more favor
able to the idea of an animal origin for the human body. It
teaches that progress is made by sudden and unexpected ad
vances in living organisms. The causes are not known. This
would accord with the view of theistic evolution more closely
than the older conception of progress by infinitesimal stages of
growth. But in any case the chief point is God's agency in
the ongoing of the world. It is doubtful whether even the
mutation theory can account for the wide chasm between the
animal and the human skull. The third remark is that we should

[256]

Creation

not raise a false issue here. Theology can well afford to let the
science of biology work out its own problems as to origins.
Mutual respect and patience will bring harmony in due time.
There are serious enough difficulties for the intellect on any
view. Meantime, two truths are to be held tenaciously. One is
that man was made a spiritual being in God's image and not
as the product of matter. The other is that when we fully
understand them and correctly interpret them, the Scriptures
and natural science will not bear discordant witness.

2. Now a striking peculiarity of man is that he is the connect
ing link between the physical and the spiritual universe. His body
is the connecting link between man and the physical universe,
just as his soul is the connecting link with the spiritual universe.
Man is body and soul.

3. The spiritual nature of man is sometimes referred to in the
Scriptures as both " soul " and " spirit " (i Thess. 5 : 23). But
a survey of all the biblical teachings shows that the writers
were using popular rather than scientific language, and that soul
and spirit were the aspects of the one undivided spiritual life of
man rather than a scientific distinction of parts. Many passages
refer to the spirit only, (i Cor. 5 : 5 ; 6 : 17; 7 : 34; Gal.
6 : 1 8.) The words employed in the Old Testament in reference
to man are soul (nephesh), spirit (ruach), and flesh (basar).
The words in the New Testament correspond. They are soul
(psuche), spirit (pneuma), and flesh (sarx). Man's nature then
is twofold. He is spirit and he is body. Both are necessary
to him as man. As mere physical organism he is not man. As
disembodied spirit he is not fully man. He is man only in the
unity of a personal life combining both body and soul. " Soul "
then means usually the individual person as in " the soul that
sinneth" (Ezek. 18 : 4). "Spirit" means the principle of life
as contrasted with body. " Body " means the physical organism.

4. The biblical account makes it entirely clear that man was
created by God in the divine image. It is also clear that the
divine image in man relates to his spiritual rather than to his
physical nature. God is not physical. God is Spirit.

[2571

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

In what respects then does man bear the divine image? These
may be summed up in the following statements :

(1) Man resembles God in his possession of a rational nature.
Man's capacity in this regard is the source of all scientific knowl
edge. He reads the meaning of nature and discovers that it is
stamped with the marks of reason. Man understands God by
reason of the marks of intelligence in the world about him.
Reason in man answers to reason in God.

(2) Man is like God in that he has a moral nature. He knows
good and evil. The moral law, ethical ideals and systems, are
all based on the moral nature of God. In man that moral image
is reproduced. Conscience is in a real sense God's voice in
man. It is the sure index to man's moral constitution. It is
not uniform in its action in mankind, but it is universal and
persistent.

(3) Man resembles God also in the possession of an emotional
nature. He is capable of feeling. His highest feeling is right
eous love. This is derived from the same quality in God him
self.

(4) Man is made in God's image also in his possession of
will. Here we come upon a wonderful endowment of man. Will
is totally distinct from all forms of physical causation as known
to us. Some have even gone so far as to call it a " supernatural "
power. In any event it belongs to an order above the physical.
It cannot be explained by the law of the conservation of energy.
It is in a true sense an originating cause.

(5) A'gain, man is made in God's image as a free being. Free
dom means self-determination. Man is not a being whose actions
are all predetermined for him by external forces. Nor is he in
a state of indetermination, as uninfluenced by motives derived
from the past, or from without. Freedom in man does not imply
exemption from the operation of influences, motives, heredity,
environment. It means rather that man is not under compulsion.
His actions are in the last resort determined from within. He
is self-determined in what he does. Some hold that freedom in
man means ability to transcend himself and act contrary to his

[258]'

Creation

character. The will is thus regarded not as an expression of
what man is in his essential character. It is free in the sense of
being capable of choices unrelated to past choices, acquired traits,
and hereditary tendencies. This is an untenable view of free
dom. It makes of the will a mere external attachment to man's
nature rather than an expression thereof. Freedom excludes
compulsion from without. It also excludes mere caprice and
arbitrariness. Freedom is self-determination. The acts of a free
being are his own acts. The mere capacity for choosing between
good and evil is not the most important aspect of man's freedom.
It is one phase of it only. But if he were confirmed in holiness
with no temptation to sin, he would still be free. God is self-
determined to holiness, yet he is free. Our moral consciousness
and our religious consciousness, especially as conditioned by our
experience of God in Christ through our own free choice, are
indelible marks of our freedom. They are at the same time
tokens of the divine image in man. The above traits in man
are not to be regarded as altogether distinct from each other.
They are all merely aspects or functions of man's unified per
sonal life. They are mutually interdependent. They are ele
ments in the organic unity of his personality.

(6) Again, the divine image in man appears in his original
freedom from sin and inclination to righteousness. We should
not here confound perfection in the sense of character achieved
through long periods of trial and conflict with the sinlessness of
man's original nature. Even Christ was made perfect through
sufferings. (Heb. 2 : 10.) The perfection of the first Adam
at the outset could not have been that of the second Adam at
the close of his earthly life. The cumulative growth of knowl
edge, along with moral and spiritual power, is due to a life
lived under the conditions of time. Complete development in
all spiritual qualities could only come gradually. But man was
created without sin, and as thus endowed he was capable of sin
and a fall.

(7) Another mark of the divine image in man was the do
minion over the lower orders of creation, given him by the

[ 259 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Creator. " Have dominion over the earth and subdue it " was
God's command to him. All human progress is but the fulfilment,
in one way or another, of this ideal.

(8) Immortality is a further mark of the divine image in man.
The spirit of man survives bodily death in an endless existence.
The facts regarding the future life are incapable of proof which
will leave no possibility of doubt. This is because they lie be
yond the range of present experience. But the natural reason
of man and his religious experience combine in a remarkable way
to establish belief in immortality. We give the chief arguments
in brief outline.

We note first those drawn from the natural reason:

a. First of all, immortality is a necessary inference from a pro
gressive creation. Nature reaches an anticlimax in man if he
ceases to exist at death. The movement toward an end is thus
defeated.

b. Again, the belief in immortality in some form is practically
universal among men. It is a part of the general religious life
of mankind. It is like the universal belief in God. This sug
gests an analogy with the life of the physical organism. It is
maintained by means of the correspondence between internal and
external relations. The universe responds to the call of its
creatures. The fact corresponds to the craving, as the structure
of the eye implies the existence of light.

c. Again, modern physiological psychology favors belief in im
mortality in that it proves clearly a parallelism between mental
and physical states, but not a causal connection. Brain states are
parallel with mind states, but the brain does not produce thought.

d. Once more, the phenomenon of death suggests immortality.
The body as we know it is contrasted in all points \vith mind as
we know it. Bodily decay, therefore, suggests an undecaying
spirit. Certain forms of modern idealism have insisted that
mental phenomena are simply phases of eternal being, and that
by its very nature thought is lifted above the physical and placed
in the eternal order. In any event the marked and radical con
trasts between matter and spirit remain.

[260]

Creation

e. Immortality is also urged on the ground of the inequalities
and wrongs of the present life. We are all subject to conditions
in which men fail to find exact justice. The innocent frequently
suffer. The guilty often escape. A future life would provide
opportunity for correcting these conditions.

/. Closely connected with the preceding is the further fact that
we are conscious of powers greater than our present oppor
tunities. Man is capable of indefinite, indeed possibly infinite,
growth. He beats against the bars of present limitations and
longs for a wider range of activities. Immortality is a natural
inference from this fact.

We note next the biblical teachings:

a. The Old Testament in its earlier stages has no very clear de
liverances on the immortality of the soul. Existence after death
in Sheol, or the realm of the dead, in a conscious state, is the view
underlying the Old Testament belief. In some of the psalms
and later prophets strong assertion of immortality are found.
(2 Sam. 22 : 6; Num. 16 : 30; Ps. 16; 17; 49; 73; Job 14 :
i3ff.; 16 : 18; 17 : 9; 19 : 25!.)

b. In the New Testament the doctrine finds abundant warrant.
The resurrection of Jesus is the historical fact of greatest sig
nificance. But the entire teaching of Jesus implies the eternal
destiny of man. The gospel rests on the infinite worth of indi
vidual men. Human personality is the supreme value for God.
To redeem it was the end of Christ's mission. Only as immortal
was it worthy of such an end.

c. In strict agreement with Christ's revelation is our own re
ligious experience of God in Christ. Through him we are recon
ciled to God and enter into relations of spiritual fellowship with
him. The form which this fellowship takes is that of Fatherhood
and sonship. We have the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry,
Abba, Father. The worth of man in God's sight is thus the eter
nal worth of a son. The power by which we realize this fellowship
and sonship is the Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.
The measure of the energy working in us is the measure of the
power which raised Christ from the grave. (Eph. I : 20.)

[261]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The Christian thus finds the complete and satisfying answer
to the natural craving for and universal belief in immortality.
The value which natural religion teaches and natural reason
infers is met by the reality which Christianity creates. Im
mortal life has already begun in the soul when God reveals
Christ in us. One of Paul's favorite forms of teaching is that
the present life of believers is a resurrection life. (Col. 2 : 20;

3 = 4.)

IV. THE ORIGIN OF SOULS

One question regarding man relates to the origin of the indi
vidual soul. Several views have been advanced on the subject.
The whole question is more or less speculative, but a few para
graphs may be devoted to it. We note three theories :

The first is the theory of preexistence. Souls have existed in
a previous state. The soul enters the human body at some point
in the early stages of the development of the body. Some have
urged the view to account for the coming of sin into the world.
It is supposed that the sin was committed in a previous state of
existence.

The idea, however, is foreign to Christianity, and has no war
rant other than the speculation out of which it arises. It offers
no solution of the problem of sin. It simply transfers it from the
present to the past. It does not solve the problem any better than
other theories.

The second theory is that each soul is an immediate creation
of God. It enters the body at an early stage in the development
of the body. The body itself is of course produced by natural
generation. The chief object sought by advocates of this theory
is to preserve the spiritual character of the soul. It is supposed
that if souls are propagated, it implies that they are material-
There are several objections to the view. The biblical teach
ing does not support it. According to it, God's usual method
since the first creation is mediate rather than immediate creation.
God rested from his creative labors on the seventh day. The
new spiritual creation in Christ partakes of the quality of the

[262]

Creation

original creation in some respects, but it is not identical in kind
with it. The new creation in Christ arises out of man's need
because of sin. The origin of Christ's human nature is excep
tional for similar reasons.

Apart from the biblical, there are two other serious objections
to the doctrine of immediate creation of souls. One is that men
often resemble their ancestors in spirit as well as body. If
heredity explains similar bodily traits, it more satisfactorily ac
counts also for the spiritual resemblances. The other objection
is that the theory of immediate creation fails to account for the
tendency to sin in all men. Sin inheres primarily in the spirit,
not the body. We cannot accept the view that God directly
creates the soul with sinful tendencies.

The third theory is known as traducianism. It holds that spirit
and body are produced by natural generation. It is the view
which best satisfies the reason and explains the facts. The
universal tendency to sin is thus accounted for. The transmis
sion of traits of character from parent to child is explained.
The view best explains also the unity of the race. Men are
bound together in a common life in spirit as well as body. The
view also accords with God's usual method. His present method
of working is in general through the law and processes of nature.
He is as truly present as on the immediate creation theory. God
indwells in all the processes of nature. Life is his gift. But it is
his gift through natural generation.

The objection that this view makes the soul material does
not hold. God's presence in the process of generation is the
guaranty against this. The relation of spirit to body is a pro
found mystery in the nature of every individual. We can only
accept the obvious fact that the two coexist in closest connection
in each of us. We cannot explain it. The transmission of both
elements of our nature from parent to child is simply a par
ticular phase of the general problem of the relation between spirit
and body.

In the absence of direct Scripture teaching on this subject we
are without means of setting forth more than a probable con-

[263]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

elusion. Theoretical proofs one way or the other are more or
less precarious. We must maintain under any view man's spir
ituality and immortality. If we do this no great consequences
can be involved in the theories formed with a view to satisfying
the reason.

[264

CHAPTER XI
PROVIDENCE

I. DEFINITION

EFORE the subject of Providence is discussed it is proper
to refer briefly to God's preservation of the world. By
preservation is meant God's action in sustaining the uni
verse he has made. We are not to think of the universe as a
machine created and left to itself by the Creator. This is the
deistic view which virtually excludes God from all human ex
perience as well as from physical nature. Neither are we to think
of the universe as God's continuous creation. This is virtual
pantheism. It leaves no room for any degree of independence
or freedom in nature or man. Thus it would destroy moral
and spiritual values along with the idea of natural law. God
has created the universe in the past. He now preserves it.

God's present relation to the world is one of immanence and
transcendence. As immanent God indwells in nature and man,
sustaining both in their natural qualities and powers. His preser
vation of nature is in harmony with the operation of natural law,
and his preservation of man accords with human freedom. As
transcendent God is not confined to the created universe. He is
more than nature and man. These do not absorb God. He is
infinite Spirit and is greater than all created things. He is free
in his action and not exhausted by his present activities.

By the providence of God we mean his control or direction of
the universe toward the end which he has chosen. There are a
number of important truths contained in the general doctrine of
God's providential control of the world. We proceed to discuss
them.

i. First, God's providence implies a divine purpose in the con
trol of the universe. By tracing the process from lower to higher

[265]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

stages of creation we discover God's purpose. Man, the free
spiritual being made in God's image, is the crown of creation.
From this we conclude that God's end has to do with personal
and spiritual beings. He is seeking to reproduce himself in a
kingdom of free spirits. As Father he is seeking to bring many
sons to glory.

This conclusion is in strict accord with the revelation of God
in Christ. The Old Testament shows how the foundations of
God's moral kingdom were laid in the long history of Israel.
The New Testament brings the final revelation of God's pur
pose in Christ. It culminates in the disclosure of an everlasting
kingdom of holy love, in which Christ's people are conformed to
his moral and spiritual image in fellowship with one another and
with God.

Central in the teaching of Jesus is God's care of the individ
ual as well as the spiritual society. Christian experience affirms
with great energy God's care and guidance. The redeemed man
knows the superintending care of a loving Father. The evi
dences of such care are too manifold for him to doubt. It is
therefore easy for him to accept the doctrine of Providence. He
needs only to generalize his own personal experience along with
that of other Christians to express the meaning of this great truth.
Here again reason, Scripture, and experience combine to produce
certainty in our thinking.

2. The providential control of God implies the divine sover
eignty. The sovereignty of God has too often been made a
hard doctrine by being presented in a manner too abstract. The
decrees of God are defined as the expression of an eternal pur
pose by which he foreordains all things whatsoever that come to
pass. The statement is true only if we bear in mind several
other statements. One is that foreordination must not cancel
human freedom, else God is responsible for man's sinful acts.
Another is that man's sinful acts are foreordained in a per
missive sense only and not efficaciously. Again, for us the chief
thing in God's purpose is not " all things " in general, but rather
the establishment of his spiritual kingdom in Christ, Men do

[266]

Providence

not object to God's sovereignty if it is seen that we have to do
with a righteous and loving God, and not a merely arbitrary and
omnipotent being. God's sovereignty means, then, that he keeps
the reins of government in his own hands. He guides the uni
verse to his own glorious end. That end embodies the highest
ideals of holiness and love. We rejoice that it is so and gratefully
trust him and cooperate with him. We shall return to the sub
ject of God's sovereignty when we consider his method in saving
men. Here his sovereignty is defined simply in relation to his
providential control of the world.

3. God's providential control of the world is in accordance with
the presence of law in the physical and moral realm. Little need
be said about physical law. Science has demonstrated in a mar
velous manner that nature is a realm of law. This is one of the
most beneficent arrangements of God. Many if not all forms of
human well-being are based on the operation of law. Health of
body may be conserved ; the ground may be tilled ; a thousand
forms of human activity are possible by reason of the presence
of law in the physical realm.

Law prevails also in the moral realm. The moral kingdom
is a reproduction among men of eternal principles of right as
these exist in God. Conscience bears witness to the law of
right and wrong written in the constitution of human nature.
The rewards of righteousness and the penalties for transgression
in the individual life bear witness to the reign of moral law.
The course of history is an illustration on a grand scale of these
same laws. The career of Israel and the teachings of the
prophets are God's revelation of his righteousness and love. It
is God training a nation in the laws of his eternal kingdom.

The Scriptures do not trace the whole course of the race in
moral development, nor do they dwell on abstract questions re
garding conscience. But one thing is clearly recognized. It is
that moral law is not based on expediency merely. Utilitarian
theories do not account for man's moral constitution. The Ten
Commandments and the moral law generally are grounded in
God's nature.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

4. God's providential control of the world respects human free
dom. Man is distinguished from physical nature by the pos
session of free personality. The laws of nature are fixed and
may be expressed in mathematical formulae. God controls nature
in accordance with these laws. But man is on a higher level.
God has limited himself in his methods with free beings. Here
compulsion is out of the question. Sovereignty and predestina
tion do not annul freedom. If they did so, man would be
reduced to the physical, or at least the brute, level. God does not
indeed surrender the destinies of the universe to his free creatures.
But his control is through means which have respect for their
freedom.

5. God's providential control of men makes use of the unity of
the race. Heredity is a universally recognized law in modern
scientific circles. Each individual is the product of all his an
cestors. We inherit traits and tendencies which are physical,
moral, and intellectual. The tendency to sin, which always mani
fests itself in actual sin in every person who attains to a state
of moral consciousness, is an inherited tendency.

A great mass of evidence supplies ample grounds for the be
lief in race unity and solidarity. The Scriptures clearly teach it.
This appears in the Genesis account of man's origin and in the
New Testament teachings as to the incarnation and its benefits
for mankind. Confirmation of the biblical teaching appears in
several forms. These can only be referred to briefly. The his
tory of mankind points to a common origin somewhere in Asia.
Modern ethnologists are in substantial agreement on this point.
Comparative philology points strongly to a common origin for
the chief languages of the world, with no evidence against such
origin for all languages. Psychology bears witness to common
mental characteristics, common moral and social capacities and
religious tendencies. Christianity through missionary effort has
shown itself capable of meeting the universal religious needs of
men, and this indirectly points strongly to race unity. Com
parative physiology shows that men are one in their organic
physical peculiarities. In the formation of the head, teeth,

[268]

Providence

bones, nervous system, and in other ways all men are essentially
alike. Varieties appear in size, color, and other divergencies.
But these are traceable to external causes, such as climate and
conditions of the environment. They do not alter the funda
mental likeness.

The principle of race unity and solidarity in one aspect is
dark and forbidding. Through it the tendency to sin is trans
mitted. Disease, crime, and various forms of physical disability
may in some measure result from its operation. Generations
may thus be bound together by its action. But, on the other hand,
it is marvelously beneficent when it operates normally as God
intended. The good results of human attainment may also be per
petuated thus. The cumulative effects of human struggle through
history may be floated on the stream of heredity to remote gen
erations. Racial unity and solidarity are vitally connected with
the spiritual headship of Christ. The benefits of his mediatorial
work flow out to men because he is one with mankind.

6. God's providential care extends to individuals as well as to
the race as a whole. We have already indicated the operation
of moral law in history. God has been leading the race from
stage to stage of progress. Nations are employed to render ser
vices of various kinds. Ancient Greece led the world in philo
sophic thought and general culture. Rome was preeminent in or
ganization and government. Israel was God's organ for the
redemptive self -revelation of God. All these and other nations
served a great world-end in God's plan.

But God's care extends also to the smallest details of the in
dividual life. The very hairs of our head are numbered. Not
a sparrow falleth without God's notice.

God's providence is special in that it extends to the smallest
events. It is general in that it extends to great events and to
the general ongoing of the world. But special providences are
general in that they are part of God's general plan. General
providences are special because they are the sum of the special
providences. The distinction between ordinary and extraor
dinary providences is also sometimes made in view of the fact

[269]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

that God has employed miracles and prophecy and other unusual
methods as well as those belonging to the normal forces of nature
and history. Again, the distinction between physical and spir
itual in God's providential action is based on the difference be
tween his method in dealing with nature where physical law
is employed and in dealing with man according to his free moral
nature.

7. God's providential action has sometimes employed miracles
:is a means for advancing his kingdom. There are several state
ments which may be made regarding the place of miracles in God's
care of the world.

(1) The first is that the whole question of miracles should be
taken out of the region of theoretical abstractions and brought
over to the region of fact and evidence. No a priori or abstract
objection can possibly hold against a fact of any kind. We cannot
assert without more ado how God must govern the world. We
can only observe how he actually governs it.

(2) A second statement is that, for the Christian, the fact basis
from which he regards the whole question of miracles is his own
experience of God in Christ. He knows a supernatural power
in his own spiritual life. It is an easy transition from this ex
perience to acceptance of the recorded miracles of Scripture
where the evidence is sufficient to justify their acceptance.

(3) A third statement is that the fundamental rational ground
for belief in miracles is the Christian world-view. That world-
view holds that God is a personal free Spirit, greater than the
world, who has a loving and holy end in view and seeks to bless
his children. The unity of nature is then not merely that of a
mechanical system of physical causes and effects, but a free sys
tem of divine ends. If God were limited and confined within
nature, he would be under the operation of necessity. But
being transcendent as well as immanent in the world, God may
use natural agencies for spiritual ends.

(4) A fourth statement is that the use of natural forces for
spiritual ends is not necessarily a violation of natural law. The
miracles of Jesus were often restorations rather than violations

[270]

Providence

of natural processes. Sin brought the violation through man's
abuse of his freedom. God's grace in the gospel is a restoration
on a scale of great magnitude and glorious effectiveness. Jesus
healed the sick, restored the blind, cast out demons, fed the
hungry by means of his miraculous deeds. These were restora
tions, not violations; disease, sin, blindness, demoniac possession,
hunger, were evils he came to remedy.

Thus it appears that Jesus employed natural forces in higher
ways and for higher ends. In ordinary human affairs the
action of will and personality often modifies natural causes and
changes the result. Firemen extinguish burning buildings, medi
cal science reduces disease, and in a hundred ways men change
the course of natural events. These are not miracles, but they
involve the principle of miracles. Will is higher than physical
causation. God is greater than nature.

(5) A fifth statement is that from the highest point of view
miracles may be regarded as natural events. We call them super
natural. This is correct when we define the natural as merely the
mechanical. But if we include in the natural all that pertains to
the nature of God and man as well as physical creation, then the
miraculous is also natural. God is not a foreigner in a strange
country when he works in the physical order. Its laws are his
laws. As the players use ball and bat in a game of baseball, so
God meant that men should employ matter, force, and motion to
exercise their spiritual powers, to develop their individuality and
personality in playing the game of life. In short, the physical
is subordinate to the moral and personal order. Uniformity of
nature is the established method. When God works through
miracles he shows the unity of all things under himself. But
he also shows thereby his beneficent purpose toward his free
creatures.

(6) A sixth point regarding miracles is that they do not disturb,
but rather establish, the higher continuity of the world. Physical
science has sometimes regarded miracles as impossible because
they seemed to disrupt the continuity of physical causes. But if
the world is ultimately spiritual and personal we expect God to

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

manifest himself in convincing ways when there is need. His
ultimate purpose is to develop sons of God in a divine kingdom.
The incarnation and resurrection of Christ are God's miraculous
self-disclosure toward this supreme end. His movement through
Israel's history exhibits the preliminary stages of his unfolding
purpose. Christian history marks its continuance. His new
spiritual creation of the community of believers through Christ
is the crowning act of his first creation of the race. Thus the
personal, moral, and spiritual ideal is seen to govern all his
actions. This is the true continuity of the world of which the
supernatural forms the most significant part.

(7) In closing the subject of miracles a few things may be
added to the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.
Many people look with certain doubt upon the natural order as
if God were wholly absent from it. They think of the super
natural as if it were a power apart from nature, breaking into
it and disturbing it. Thus they think of the natural and super
natural realms as if they were opposing systems, God being
present in one and absent from the other. Nature is regarded
as a self-running machine, and God as apart from it and able to
enter it only by " violating " it in some way. Hence the alleged
conflicts between science and religion. There is no conflict ex
cept when there is confusion of thought. All that is needed is to
keep in mind two or three fundamental truths and hold them in
their proper relations to each other.

a. The scientific man justly insists that his task is to trace out
the rules or laws under which natural events occur. He simply
describes their coexistences and sequences and uniformities. He
does not ask as to the original or first cause, nor as to the ultimate
underlying and sustaining cause, nor as to the final cause or end
of all things. All these questions would divert him from his
proper task. That task is a limited but very important one for
human welfare.

b. The philosopher's task is also distinct. He uses the facts
which science presents. But he goes farther. He asks, What was
the first cause of all things ; what is the underlying, unifying, and

[272]

Providence

sustaining cause; and what is the final cause or purpose of the
world? He seeks a rational account of the universe. He justly
insists that scientific explanations are not ultimate. They simply
define how things act, how physical events come to pass. They
never explain why they act in this or that way.

c. The religious man goes a step beyond philosophy. He
seeks redemption through divine power, fellowship, and blessed
ness. He seeks the eternal Person. He desires above all to find
God. We may sum up by saying that the scientist works with
the principle of causality; the philosopher with the principle of
rationality; and the religious man with the principle of per
sonality. Now conflict and confusion arise when these distinc
tions are overlooked. A scientific man is not bound to stop
along the way from time to time and tell what physics, or chem
istry, or geology, or physiology teaches about God. But his
science in no sense warrants him to silence the philosopher when
the latter seeks ultimate causes. Nor can the philosopher for
bid the religious man's act of faith through which he finds the
personal God. But having found God, the Christian comes back
to nature with a new sense of God's presence and purpose in it.
For him the causal relation which the scientist studies, and the
rational process which the philosopher expounds, are both ways
of God's working, methods of his providence and grace. Nature
is not a self-running machine. God is everywhere present in it.
It is a means for realizing a gracious end. Hence the Christian
man avoids the error of a false naturalism which banishes God
from nature, and the error of the false supernaturalism which
makes of the miracle an intrusion of God into a sphere where
he does not belong. So also he grasps the following truths : first,
that God is immanent everywhere in nature; that it is none the
less God's work, though it be accomplished by slow operation of
natural law; that personality is supreme, not law; that the true
continuity is in the divine purpose, not in mechanical forces ; and
that God can work suddenly as well as slowly ; that his supreme
interest is the realm of free personal beings, and that whatever
is needful for their welfare he can and will perform. Whether

F 273 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

or not he works miracles, therefore, can never be prejudged
on abstract grounds. The facts alone can answer the question.
There can be no question as to the biblical witness to his super
natural working.

8. God's providential methods provide for prayer and its an
swer. Many have found difficulty in reconciling the idea of
answered prayer with God's unchangeableness and eternal pur
pose. But the difficulty rests upon a view of God's plan and
purpose which is too narrow. The following considerations will
help to make the matter clear :

First of all, God's unchangeableness is simply his moral self-
consistency. God always acts in harmony with his character.
If the answer to prayer is required by his moral self -consistency,
then it is to be regarded not only as possible, but necessary in
his providential government.

Secondly, God's eternal purpose, as we have seen, included the
creation of free beings capable of fellowship with himself.

Thirdly, religion is the supreme expression and completion of
the relationship between God and man. Religion involves inter
course. God speaks to man, and man speaks to God.

Fourthly, prayer is the central and most characteristic mark
of religion. In it are involved all the religious elements — trust,
sense of dependence, penitence, adoration, desire for moral like
ness to God, triumph over sin and death, yearning for eternal life
and perfect blessedness in him.

Fifthly, tin Christianity religion takes the form of Fatherhood
and sonship. This implies the utmost freedom of intercourse be
tween God and man. The divine Father wishes the son to be
worthy of his royal lineage in his desires. If the son is to rise
to the level of sonship, he will seek many things he does not
possess, which only God the Father can give. In prayer he will
interrogate God about all of them. His attitude as son will lead
him to renounce wrong things as promptly as it will impel
him to ask for right things. Now God's fatherly desire toward
his children, his aim in " bringing many sons to glory," finds its
progressive fulfilment chiefly in the birth of new and greater

[274]

Providence

desires in the hearts of his children. Nothing pleases him more
than to see the growth of a truly spiritual ambition in his sons.
Coupled with this is their sense of dependence on him, which
finds its best expression in prayer and petition. The joy of the
Father is to hear the prayers of the aspiring son and to grant his
petitions. It thus appears that the answer to prayer is not a
thought alien to God's unchangeable purpose and plan, but rather
inwrought in its very texture. The play of freedom, of love, of
holy purpose, is provided for in God's plan of the world.

Sixthly, the material sphere is not excluded from the operation
of God in answer to prayer. Material gifts may be an element in
the spiritual end of God in the ongoing of his kingdom. " Give
us this day our daily bread " is a petition in the Lord's Prayer.
The material and spiritual spheres are not to be conceived of as
opposed to each other here. It is an error to think of God as
unable to employ material agencies in blessing his children. It
is also an error to think of material goods as the supreme gifts
of God to men. Nature is subordinate to grace. The supreme
gifts of grace are spiritual.

With the above considerations in mind we conclude that the
doctrine of prayer and its answer as set forth in the New Tes
tament gives us the only worthy view of God and his purpose.
When Paul says, " All things work together for good to them that
love God," we understand him to include nature as well as grace.
The very make of the universe had in view from the beginning
the good of God's children. Prayer is the child's expression
of his love and trust and of the firm persuasion that the world is
God's world. It is his Father's house, not chaos, or the sphere
of action of a blind fate. When Jesus says, " Ask and ye shall
receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto
you," we hear the voice of one who could see behind the veil and
knew that God's moral self-consistency as Father impels him to
hear and answer prayer. Again, when Paul says, "The Spirit
maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered,"
our experience as Christians echoes his words. We understand
how God's indwelling Spirit is trying to teach us the supreme

[275]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

art of prayer, and trying to awaken in us a holy daring which
will humbly aspire to the highest achievement and attainment.

9. God's providential care of the world admits of the presence
of pain and suffering among men. This is what is commonly
known as physical evil as contrasted with moral evil or sin. The
problem of physical evil is closely related to the problem of sin,
which will be considered under a separate head. Meantime, two
or three general statements may be made.

The first is that the modern development theory assigns a very
important place to the processes of pain and death among the
lower animals. It is thus that the species are perfected.

Secondly, in the New Testament suffering is glorified, not as a
good within itself, but as a means to spiritual growth. Pain may
and indeed often does follow as a result of holy living in a sinful
world. In all its forms it is for the Christian a means of growth
in the divine life.

Thirdly, the universal experience of believers in Christ confirms
the above estimate of suffering, of pain, and conflict. By faith
it becomes for them a means of grace.

II. ANGELS

In connection with the subject of Providence we add a brief
discussion of angels. One fact is to be noted at the outset. It
is that while very little is said in Scripture about the origin of
angels, their existence and activity are everywhere assumed in
both the Old and New Testaments.

Two unwarranted assumptions against the reality of angelic
beings should receive attention here. One is that the belief in
angels is merely a survival of heathen beliefs, and that a scientific
age can no longer accept it. In reply we admit that belief in
such beings is quite common among the races of mankind. But
as in so many other instances of religious belief, its universality
is not an evidence of falsity. It may imply a fundamental truth.
Certainly the scientific assumption that man is the only intelligent
being God has ever created is a most violent one. Referring

Providence

to this subject Dr. William Adams Brown remarks:1 "We are
less ready than earlier generations to dogmatize about the unseen
world. But surely no more flagrant example of dogmatism could
be found than the assumption that apart from God man is the
only moral and reasonable being in so vast a universe, and that
the only spiritual meaning which it contains is that expressed in
God's relations to us. What moral* purpose and spiritual com
munion God may have with other beings in the boundless reaches
of space and time which modern science has brought within our
ken, we do not know. Our faith is simply that the meaning of
all life everywhere is to be found in its relation to such a wise,
holy, and loving Father as Christ has revealed; and that the in
terest, the wonder, and the joy which we, with our imperfect
faculties and narrow insight, feel in our communion with nature,
and in our relation to the so-called lower orders, must exist for
God supremely."

Another assumption which cannot be admitted is that the au
thority of Jesus is against belief in the existence of angels. It is
held by some that everything in the Gospels bearing on the sub
ject, which comes from his acts and teachings, is to be under
stood as an accommodation to Jewish belief. We do not pro
pose to review the evidence here. It is very abundant and
appears in his dealings with those possessed of evil spirits, his ref
erences to little children and " their angels," and to Satan or Beel
zebub, and in other ways. In fact, these references are so numer
ous and explicit that it seems incredible that Jesus could have
personally held a view contradictory to that which was so manifest
in his words and deeds. We may well admit that our knowledge
about angelic beings is limited and that our only source of in
formation is the Scriptures. But we may at least gather up the
teachings about them as there recorded. We may set forth a
brief outline of biblical teaching in the following statements :

I. The existence and activity of angels are assumed as ac
cepted truths in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old
Testament they are present and " shout for joy " at the creation

1 " Outline of Christian Theology," pp. 199, 200.

[ 2/7 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the world. (Job 38 : 7.) As a rule, they bear human form
and appear as men. (Gen. 18 : 2, 16; Ezek. 9 : 2.) In Genesis
19 : 13 angels are commissioned to destroy Sodom. An angel
appears to Balaam. (Num. 22 : 22ff.) In the New Testament
there are frequent references. Angels appear in dreams to Joseph.
(Matt. I : 20; 2 : 13, 14.) An angel appears to Zacharias and
Mary. (Luke i : 11-37.) Angels come to Jesus in the tempta
tion (Matt. 4 : n) and in Gethsemane. (Luke 22 : 43.) Jesus
declares that there is joy among the angels over a penitent sin
ner. (Luke 15 : 10.) Jesus will confess or deny those who con
fess or deny him in the presence of the angels. (Luke 12 : 8f.)
In frequent passages Paul refers to angels. (l Cor. 6 : 3; II : 10;
Col. 2 : 18; i Tim. 5 : 21.)

2. Little is said as to the origin of angels in the Bible. But it
is clear that they are regarded as created beings. In Psalm
148 : 2-5 this is manifest. They are called upon to worship God.
They are the heavenly host (i Kings 22 : 19; Dan. 7 : 10; Ps.
103 : 21 ; 148 : iff.) who praise and glorify their Maker.

3. As to the office of angels two or three statements may
be made. Our English word is from the Greek word angelos,
meaning one sent, a messenger. This Greek word is a trans
lation of the Hebrew word mal'akh, which also means messenger.
Angels, then, are God's servants or messengers. They do his will
in many ways. They are also servants of the saints of God on
earth. They are sent forth to do service for the heirs of sal
vation. (Heb. i : 14.) There is no warrant for a belief in
" guardian angels " in the sense that each individual believer is
attended by an angel who protects him. Still less is there war
rant for praying to angels or thinking of them as coming between
the soul and God. In Scripture they are employed for particular
purposes under exceptional circumstances, but always as ser
vants of God or men except in the cases of evil angels.

4. The Angel of the Covenant is an outstanding figure in the
Old Testament teaching as to angels. This angel possesses char
acteristics which bring him into closest relations with Jehovah
himself. His special designation as " the Angel of the Covenant "

[278]

Providence

or " the Angel of the Lord/' is itself suggestive. Some remark
able statements are made about this angel which in some sense
identify him with Jehovah. In Genesis 31 : 13, the angel says to
Jacob: " I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst a pillar,
where thou vowedst a vow unto me." Again, in Genesis 32 : 30,
after wrestling with the angel, Jacob says, " I have seen God face
to face, and my life is preserved." Pardoning power is attributed
to the Angel in Exodus 23 : 20, 21. Jehovah says: "Provoke
him not ; for he will not pardon your transgressions ; for my name
is in him." In response to a prayer of Moses God says, " Behold
mine angel shall go before thee." Later he says, " My presence
shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest" (Exod. 32 : 34;
33 : 14). We cannot review all the passages referring to this
Angel. (See Gen. 16 : 7; 22 : n ; 24 : 7, 40; Exod. 3; Acts
7 : 3off.; Exod. 13 : 21; 14 : 19; 23 : 20; Josh. 5 : 13; 6 : 2;
Judg. 2 : 1-5; 6 : n.) It is clear from the preceding that
divine functions are attributed to him and that he is identified
with Jehovah himself in some passages.

Some have seen in the Angel of the Covenant a manifestation
of God in the form of the eternal Logos, or of the second person
of the Trinity. Perhaps it is enough to say that there are Mes
sianic elements in the Angel, that is, a special self -manifestation
of God. We are scarcely warranted in ascribing Trinitarian views
to the Old Testament writers themselves. Looking back from our
standpoint, in the light of the full self-disclosure of God in
Christ, we are likely to see more in this angelic manifestation than
the people of Israel saw. It remains true, nevertheless, that there
was something unusual and exceptional in this particular Angel
which separates him from ordinary angels.

5. We add a few statements as to Satan and the fall of angels.
As to a fall of angels there are a few references in the Scriptures.
Angels were of course created holy. All God's works were good
and not evil. In the sixth verse of Jude a reference is made to
" angels that kept not their beginning." This seems to refer
to a fall from holy character. As contrasted with sinful angels
we have in Mark 8 : 38 a reference to " holy angels." In 2 Peter

[279]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

2 : 4 there is clear reference to a fall of angels : " If God spared
not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell," etc.
Again in John 8 : 44 there is a very clear word from Jesus as to
the devil and his sin : " Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there
is no truth in him."

6. The devil, or Satan, is the chief of evil spirits. In the book
of Job he appears among the sons of God as the accuser. He is
given permission to tempt Job. Some question whether or not
his character as the fully manifested spirit of evil appears in the
passage in Job. (Job i.) But while all the traits which appear
in the later history, especially in the New Testament, do not
appear in this earlier period, the essential qualities begin to show
themselves in germinal manifestation. The word Satan means
" the adversary " or " the accuser." The word devil means
" slanderer." References to Satan are numerous in the New
Testament. The enemy that sowed tares in the field is the devil.
(Matt. 13 : 39.) In I Peter 5 : 8 he is referred to as " your
adversary the devil." In Revelation 12 : 10 John says, " the
accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before
God night and day." Paul says he desired to go to Thessalonica ;
" but Satan hindered us," he adds, (i Thess. 2 : 18.) That there
is a great number of evil spirits under the leadership of Satan
appears in many forms of statement. The lake of fire is pre
pared for " the devil and his angels " (Matt. 25 : 41). In Mark
5 : 9 the demoniac says : " My name is Legion, for we are
many." In Ephesians 2 : 2 Paul refers to " the prince of the
power of the air," and in 6 : 12, to " the spiritual hosts of
wickedness."

7. We have no clear teaching as to the cause of the fall of
angels. It is usually held to be pride. This is inferred from
Paul's words to Timothy, in which he is speaking of the quali
fications of a bishop : " not a novice, lest being puffed up he fall
into the condemnation of the devil " (i Tim. 3:6).

[280]

CHAPTER XII
SIN

OD'S providential government of the world takes account
of sin and its consequences. Because of its importance we
give it treatment in a separate chapter.
A number of topics call for discussion under the general head
of Sin. The first relates to

I. THE ORIGIN OF SIN

No explanation of the origin of sin has ever been given
which is free from difficulties. The old objection against Chris
tian theism is familiar. It takes the form of a dilemma: If
God was good and failed to prevent sin, he must have been
lacking in power. If he possessed the power and refused to
prevent it, he was lacking in goodness.

This sounds very simple and convincing until examined. But
it ignores the abundant evidences of God's goodness and power
all about us and within us. It ignores the possible uses of sin in
a universe of free beings. It ignores the operations of God's
grace in human experience, and the redemption God has* wrought
in and through Christ. It leaves out of account the vast demon
stration through historical time of a divine purpose of love in a
spiritual and eternal kingdom among men.

Theories of the Origin of Sin

I. Some have urged the theory that sin is due to man's posses
sion of a material body, that all sin arises out of sensuous desire,
and that the only way to be rid of sin is to be rid of the body.

The theory is untenable. The ancient Gnostic heresy was
based on the belief* of the inherent evil of matter, But the

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Scriptures nowhere support the view. Matter as such has no
moral quality. " The flesh " in the Scriptures does not, when
used in an ethical sense, refer to the body, but to the fleshly mind
and will. (Rom. 8 : 6, 7.) Some of the worst sins are not sins
of the flesh, but of the spirit, such as strife, jealousy, envy, and
other familiar forms of sin. (Gal. 5 : 20.) Men are commanded
to present their bodies as living sacrifices unto God (Rom. 12 : i)
and to glorify God in their bodies, (i Cor. 6 : 20.) It is clear
from this that a material body is not inherently sinful.

2. Another theory asserts that sin is human limitation. Man is
sinful because he is ignorant and finite. Sin is not a positive
thing, but only the negation of good.

The reply is that the theory changes by its definition the nature
of sin itself. It confounds other things with sin. Sin cannot
be defined as ignorance merely, because an element in sin is the
conscious choice of evil instead of good. Growth in knowledge
does not necessarily cure men of sin. Sin is not negation merely,
because there are forms of it which are very malignant and
aggressive.

This theory of sin is based on a form of idealistic pantheism
which cancels all finite forms of experience in an Absolute which
ultimately swallows them up. Man and his sin are simply finite
modes of the infinite and absolute being. They have only a
relative reality and value, and will gradually give way to the
higher forms of being. This form of pantheism is self-con
tradictory because it makes the Absolute holy and sinful, om
niscient and ignorant, at one and the same time. It certainly
contradicts man's moral sense, which pronounces him guilty when
he does wrong. It is contrary to the belief in personality and
immortality. It has no basis of biblical support whatever.

3. The most satisfactory view of the origin of sin is that which
connects it with the creation of free intelligent beings with the
power of contrary choice. Historically, we have the record of
the origin of human sin in the Genesis account of the fall of
man. There has been much discussion of the point whether the
writer there meant some elements of the account to be taken in

Sin

a symbolical sense. But the essentials of the story are almost
self-evidently true to any one who reflects upon the nature of
human choices and of sin. Alternative courses of action are
presented. Intelligent free creatures are urged to choose the
one and refuse the other. The desire for knowledge ; the moral
struggle within ; the subtle urging to the evil choice by an outside
agency; the gradual yielding of the will; the subsequent shame
and degradation — all these are true to human experience as men
know it to-day, except that in the first instance there was no
preceding sin. Sin here was the perversion of the good: the
desire for food, the craving for knowledge, and the love of the
beautiful. (Gen. 3 : 6.)

(1) We have little light upon the question of a fall among
created intelligences prior to the fall of man. There are allusions
in Scripture which seem to point to such a fall. Satan, the prince
of evil spirits, is represented as a malign influence ruling the
world and holding man in his power. His agency in the fall of
man is clearly implied in various biblical teachings.

(2) We are here concerned chiefly with man's sin and its re-
suits. As we have seen, man as created in God's image was
a free, moral, and intelligent being. He had capacity for inde
pendent action in the exercise of his freedom. The capacity
for sinning was an element in his freedom. Of course the actual
commission of sin was not necessary to freedom. But the ability
to make an evil choice was necessary. The alternatives were:
first, to create man without the capacity for discerning good and
evil, which would have left him on the level of the lower animals,
with instinct merely as his guide ; or secondly, to create him with
capacity for moral and spiritual discernment, but with no capacity
for evil choices, which would have been enforced righteousness.
This would have left him without real freedom and respon
sibility. His righteousness would not have been freely chosen,
and hence would have been lacking in the most valuable element
in real righteousness.

(3) The mystery of sin, then, is not entirely cleared away, but
it is in some degree relieved of its dark aspects when we find the

[283]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

key to it in the dignity and greatness of man as originally created.
Moral freedom is the mark of man's elevation in the scale of be
ing. Sin and the fall were not thus made necessary, but they
were made possible. A universe in which they were possible was
better than a merely mechanical universe in which free action of
the creature had no place. Only in such a universe could a moral
kingdom arise, possessing the highest manifestations of God's
grace and human attainment. No theory which derives man's
body from preceding physical forms or places him at the end of
an ascending series in creation can change the above conclusion.
He became man when he attained moral and spiritual conscious
ness. Sin remains sin under any theory as to the origin of the
body. The fall and its consequences remain. They cannot be
explained away.

(4) Observe then that sin and the fall afforded an oppor
tunity for God and for man. For God, in that his grace alone
could meet the situation. What was required was not that man
be rescued merely from the consequences of an accident, or mis
take, or unavoidable calamity. This would have called for a
measure of divine compassion and power, but not the supreme
act of grace in redeeming man from sin. Man's offense did not
call for rescue from any kind of human act which was neutral or
unmoral in quality. His act was sinful, and it was hateful to
God. He was guilty and corrupt in consequence of his deed. But
the resources of love were equal to the occasion. No other
kind of provocation could have called for such a display of divine
love. As Paul says, " Where sin abounded grace abounded
more exceedingly." Through sin and the fall the depth of the
riches and glory of the divine nature became manifest.

(5) Again, the fall afforded man an opportunity to respond
freely to the call of God, and to yield to his grace. It was
now possible for him to choose freely the divine righteousness,
to work out the salvation God was working in him, through his
grace in Christ, and to achieve a righteousness which would en
title him to an eternal reward. It is idle to speculate what the
results would have been had man chosen freely the right instead

[284]

[ . Sin

:>f the wrong in the first instance. We must deal with the facts
as we have them. Sin and grace are the poles of the human and
divine relationship. Each conditions the other. No other con
ception of the dealings of God with man can possibly do justice
to the gospel of Christ. Its meaning in large measure loses its
force under any other view.

II. CHRIST'S NATURAL AND SPIRITUAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE
HUMAN RACE

At this point it is well to develop a truth which bears an im
portant relation to a number of important doctrines. It is the
distinction between the natural and the spiritual relations of
Jesus Christ to the human race. It is a clear teaching of the New
Testament that Christ was the medium and goal of all creation.
u All things have been created through him and unto him." " In
him all things consist," or hold together. (Col. I : 16, 17.) By
him God made the worlds. (Heb. 1:2.) He is the source and
ground of all man's natural powers. " He is the true light which
lighteth every man coming into the world" (John 1:9). The
divine image in man's original constitution was derived from
Christ. Christ sustains nature and man in all their activities.
Our natural powers of reason, of will, of conscience, of emotions,
are derived from him.

i. This relation of Christ to us as human beings in our natural
state is the key to the meaning of many things in human history
and experience. It explains conscience. Man's ineradicable sense
of right and wrong, his moral constitution, in short, with all its
variations and divergencies, comes from his original relation to
Christ. Man's ability to perform many forms of duty on the
natural plane is traceable to the same source. Again, man's
rational capacity is due to the eternal Logos, the divine reason as
revealed in Christ whereby man was constituted in the image of
God. From the same source is derived man's irrepressible long
ing to know God, and the universal manifestation in one form
or another of the religious instinct in man.

[285]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

2. This truth, which is beyond all question a teaching of the
New Testament, has sometimes been taken in a sense which
is foreign to another group of New Testament teachings. The
natural has been substituted for the spiritual relationship of
Christ to mankind. The result has often been an eclipse of the
central truths of the gospel itself. Man's natural constitution in
God's image has been taken as the essential if not the sole ele
ment in man's sonship to God, and the original creative act as the
sufficient explanation of God's Fatherhood. All religions are
placed on a common level and the supernatural revelation of God
in Christ is ignored. Man's natural quest for God, and his moral
activities in certain respects are made the basis of a claim that
he is naturally capable of all possible growth and spiritual achieve
ment. Thus the necessity for the new birth by the action of
God's Spirit is set aside. Salvation thus becomes a natural evo
lution from lower to higher forms, an unfolding merely of man's
natural powers, and destitute of the redemptive elements so
clearly taught in the New Testament and so sharply defined in
Christian experience. The divine immanence is invoked to en
force the view, and the methods by which the gospel produces its
results in the world are radically changed and in large measure
rendered ineffective.

3. An illustration will make clear the above statements. It
relates to the status of infants according to the teachings of
the gospel. Are they in the kingdom of God when they are
born? Or must they voluntarily choose the kingdom as respon
sible individuals when they are capable of doing so in later
years? It is not a question whether infants dying in infancy are
saved. 'All schools of theology admit that they are. The pro
visions of Girist's atoning work extend to them, and God works
in them the needed change. But the facts of a hereditary bias
to sin and of actual sin in all children as they become morally re
sponsible, show the need of something more than natural birth in
order to membership in the kingdom. Especially is this need
shown in the universal requirement of free moral choice on the
part of every one who is capable of such choice as a condition

Sin

of such membership. The very essence of discipleship is the
voluntary acceptance of Christ. To them who " received him he
gave the right to become the children of God" (John I : 12).
In other words, the kingdom of God is constituted not on the
principle of natural propagation, but of moral and spiritual son-
ship which is the result of a divine inworking upon condition of
faith. Our own free response to the gospel and our own life
of voluntary self-renunciation are the core and center, the golden
heart of our religion. The natural relations and status of all men
are simply a precondition of the spiritual relation and status.
This voluntary element appears in the words of Jesus, even in
the passage where he employs the little child as a type and sym
bol of the attitude of all toward the kingdom. Men must be
converted and become as a little child in order to enter into the
kingdom. A warning is added for those who would cause " one
of these little ones who believe on me to stumble. " (Matt. 18 : i-
14; see also Mark 9 : 33-37; Luke 9 : 46-48; 18 : isff.; Mark
10 : 13-16; Matt. 19 : 13-15.) Faith in Christ is necessary.
We conclude then that any interpretation of the natural relation
which puts it in the place of the moral and spiritual, robs
Christianity of its ethical and personal qualities. It substitutes
biology and natural law for freedom and grace. It takes away
the highest and most distinctive elements of the gospel.

4. We do not deny, of course, but affirm the truth that the
human race is naturally constituted in and through Christ. This
is the major assumption in the gospel of God's grace. The moral,
mental, religious, and emotional elements in man are the natural
basis on which the gospel operates. But the presence of sin
has changed the conditions and has given rise to the need of
a new approach of God to man. The incarnation of God in Christ
is the outstanding mark of this great truth. The new creation
of man in and through Christ lifts him above the natural level
to the spiritual. The new sonship and Fatherhood possess ele
ments which are not present in the earlier natural relation. The
new moral kingdom is not effected merely through the immanence
of God in the natural order. It required the coming of the Son

[287]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of God from without into human conditions. First that which
is natural, then that which is spiritual. There is harmony be
tween the two orders of creation. But it is to empty the spiritual
creation of most of its meaning if we confound it with the natural.
God in Christ is lifting the universe to a higher level. He is
completing creation in and through Christ. But we must not
forget that it is a new creation and not merely an unfolding of
the natural order.

Thus it appears that God's good will toward men has taken the
form of grace, because sin has radically altered man's relations
to God. The gospel is the divine initiative for man's salvation
because sin has created the need. The coming into human life of
a new creative force from without was the only means for bring
ing about the result. Christ's original relation to the race is
what made possible his redemptive relation. He could become
one with humanity and act for humanity, because humanity had
already been constituted one through his creative act.

III. THE BIBLICAL TEACHING AS TO SIN

We cannot treat the subject exhaustively, but give the essential
points. A few definitions of sin may be noticed at the outset.
Sin has been defined as selfishness. This is certainly correct as
far as it goes. But taken by itself, selfishness is too indefinite a
term to cover certain meanings which enter into the definitions
of sin. Sin has also been defined as lack of conformity to God's
moral law. This also is correct as a partial definition of sin.
But lack of conformity to law is not an adequate definition. John
indeed says that sin is transgression of the law, or, as in the
Revised Version, "sin is lawlessness" (i John 3:4). Paul
teaches the same in numerous places. (Rom. 7 : 8, 9, 13, 23, 25.)
But elsewhere he develops other phases of sin. Law as such
does not lead us to the root of sin. Behind the law is the per
sonal God. Sin is a breach of our personal relations with God.
Again, sin has been defined as an act, disposition, or state which
is morally wrong. This is certainly an element in human sin.

[288]

Sin

Not merely our separate acts, but our moral bias, the bent of our
nature, constitutes a real part of the sin of man. But this also
needs rounding out with other truths in order to render it ac
ceptable as a definition of sin.

i. In the Old and New Testaments alike, sin is thought of
chiefly as a breach or rupture of relations between the sinner
and the personal God. We look briefly at the Old Testament
teaching. Sin manifests itself in many ways, but the ruling
thought in them all is the departure of the sinner from Jehovah's
will. There was indeed transgression of law, but it was Jehovah's
law. There were many forms of selfishness, but these were
in their essence the exaltation of self against Jehovah. There
was the sinful disposition, the wrong motive, but it consisted
chiefly in alienation of heart from Jehovah. In the story of the
fall man's sin is direct disobedience to Jehovah's command. In
Genesis 5 : 24 a righteous man is described as one who " walked
with God." Thus righteousness is personal fellowship, and by
implication, unrighteousness is the lack of such fellowship.

(1) Sin is a breach of covenant relations between God and
the people. God made many covenants with Israel. The Mosaic
covenant best expresses the covenant idea. That idea was a
nation in religious fellowship with God. Here all the provisions
of the law, ceremonial and moral, related to men inside the
covenant. Sins of ignorance, or infirmity, or inadvertence, were
provided for. When these were committed fellowship with God
was restored by means of offerings. But sins " with a high
hand " were not recognized in the covenant legislation. Idolatry,
for example, was visited with the extreme penalty of death,
because it was the deepest of sins against God.

(2) The personal relation involved in sin became clearer in
the course of the history. David committed a grievous sin
against his fellow man, but in the psalm which expresses his
deep penitence, he exclaims, " Against thee only have I sinned,
and done that which is evil in thy sight" (Ps. 51 : 4). The
prophets especially emphasize the deeper moral and spiritual
aspects of sin. With Amos sin is injustice and wrong as be-

T [ 289 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

tween man and man. With Hosea sin is sin because it is aliena
tion of heart from God. It is sin against his love. Thus we see
that while the Old Testament never loses sight of the moral law
and man's duty to his fellows, yet it couples transgression of law
in this regard with the more fundamental religious aspect of sin.

(3) The Old Testament is rich in its ethical terms and the
variety of its definitions and descriptions of sin. The Hebrew
pethi means the simple undeveloped man. Kesil means the sen
suous man. Nabhal means the fool, or man destitute of wis
dom, not only in the intellectual, but in the religious sense.
These are secondary meanings. More fundamental are the fol
lowing : Chata' means to miss the mark, and is like the New Tes
tament word Jiamartano. ' Avcn means crookedness or perverse-
ness. Tsedeq means linear straightness, which then comes to
mean righteousness. Sin is its opposite. Raf means violence
or breaking out as of evil.1

As indicative of the wealth of moral ideas in the Old Testa
ment and the deep sense of sin, Doctor Davidson says:2 " Here
we see that, in the sphere of religion, sin is idolatry; in the
sphere of speech, truth is righteousness and sin falsehood; that,
in the sphere of civil life, justice is righteousness, and sin is
injustice ; and that, in the sphere of the mind of man, sin is the
want of sincerity, either toward God or man, guile; purity, the
opposite to this, being purity of heart, simplicity, openness, gen
uineness."

2. Sin in the New Testament Teaching

There are two or three general statements as to the teaching
of Jesus. First, Jesus portrayed the ideal human life as a life
of fellowship with God the Father. Sin is the want of this fel
lowship. The conceptions of heaven and hell are thus trans
figured. Hell in its worst element is alienation from God.
Heaven is the blessedness of communion with the Father. Sec
ondly, Jesus traces sin to the inner motive of men. The sinful

1 Cf . Davidson, " Theology of the Old Testament," pp. 2078 .
a " Theology of the Old Testament," p. 231.

[2QX)]

Sin

thought is in quality the same as the outward act. Thus Jesus
greatly deepened the sense of guilt. Thirdly, the exalted stand
ard of his own life became the measure of human obligation and
at the same time the criterion for judging sin and guilt.

(1) Jesus called sinners to repentance. He was the friend
of publicans and sinners. (Matt, n : 19.) He did not regard
all men as equally bad, nor did he consider them as wholly
destitute of all good. (Luke 7 : 9; 19 : i-io; 23 : 42, 43; Mark
10 : 21.) But he did regard men as lost. He came to seek and
to save that which was lost. Men were of priceless value in
God's sight, notwithstanding their sin. The mission of Jesus
was to bring them back to God. In his teaching sin is universal.
All men need to be saved.

(2) In the Fourth Gospel sin is represented in various ways.
It is darkness as opposed to light. Men are represented as
wilfully blind to the truth. (John 9 : 41.) It is bondage as
opposed to freedom. (John 8 : 34.) Men are the willing cap
tives of sin and Satan. Jesus contrasts flesh and spirit in the
Fourth Gospel and teaches that the spiritual birth from above
is necessary to all men. (John 3:6.) The world as the sphere
of the operation of sin and Satan is regarded as sinful and
corrupt. (John 18 : 36; 17 : 25; 14 : 17; 12 : 31.) Sin is also
summed up as unbelief. (John 16 : 9.) This expresses an atti
tude of resistance to truth and to the Spirit of God. Unbelief
is the inclusive sin, the root sin. Because of it men are morally
and spiritually blind. The duty of men is to believe. Jesus is
the revelation of God to men, and their attitude toward him
becomes the basis of judgment. (John 3 : 19-21.) Now it is clear
that in all the preceding the moral and spiritual likeness of
God resulting in true fellowship with him is the ideal of Jesus.
Sin is the lack of such character and fellowship.

(3) In Paul's teaching as to sin several points need em
phasis. One is his use of the word " flesh." With Paul the
use of this term flesh is based on the Old Testament. It refers
first to the fleshly as distinguished from the spiritual element
in man as weak and infirm, and the seat of evil desires and pas-

[291 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

sions. But there is no dualism of a philosophic kind in this.
Paul does not regard the body as evil because it is material.
As matter simply it has no moral quality. But as the body is
the source of certain impulses which lead to sinful motives, de
sires, and acts, the term " flesh " came to be used by Paul for
the lower nature as contrasted with the higher. But the sinful-
ness of men inheres in the mind and will, not in the material
body as such. The " carnal mind " is enmity against God. The
" mind of the flesh " is that which cannot please God. (Rom.
8 : i-ii.)

Paul represents men as dead in trespasses and sins, and ex
posed to the wrath of God. (Eph. 2 : 1-3.) He does not mean
by this a merely passive state. Sinners are often intensely active
and aggressive. Nor does he mean that men naturally are wholly
destitute of moral light. For he declares that men by nature
do the things of the law, since they have the law written on their
hearts. (Rom. 2 : 14, 15.) Paul is simply recognizing here the
natural morality of men as contrasted with their spiritual life
in Christ. It is the same fact which Jesus observed in the case
of the young ruler. " He looked upon him and loved him "
because of his moral attainments. But the man was lacking in
the higher spiritual life as appears from his moral failure under
the test of Jesus. (Mark 10 : 17-22.) It is in instances like
these that we see sharply distinguished the difference between the
natural and the spiritual relations of Christ to men. As we have
previously pointed out, men are naturally constituted in and
through Christ. Their natural powers are all traceable to him.
But sin has changed man's attitude to God. Christ came to
recreate men in the divine image and establish a higher spiritual
life in them.

Paul discusses sin in relation to the law. He means usually
the Mosaic law. His conclusion in general is that the law was
meant to lead men to Christ. It operated thus: When the com
mandment came, sin was aroused in man and he died. The law
was not in itself weak or bad. It was ineffective only through the
sin fulness and weakness of the flesh. Human ability was thus

[292]

Sin

shown to be unequal to the requirements of the law. A sense of
sin, of corruption, and of guilt was awakened. The need of a
redemption through divine power was made manifest. Thus the
law became a schoolmaster or tutor (pedagogue) to lead to Christ.
(Gal. 3 : 24.)

Paul teaches that deliverance from sin is through faith in
Christ. This introduces a new spiritual energy in the soul.
" The old man " is crucified with Christ. An ethical-mystical
death and resurrection takes place. The law of the Spirit of
life in Christ now emancipates from the law of sin and death.
(Rom. 8:2.) The power of sin is broken by new power that
is greater. The new life in Christ is not the blossom, so to speak,
on the stalk of the natural moral life of man. It is a new life
with higher aims and ideals. It is not a natural development.
It is a new creation. The natural was the antecedent condition
of the spiritual, but new elements are introduced which exalt and
transfigure the natural life. Man now transcends his old self.
He finds himself anew in his new resurrection life in Christ.

Paul traces human sin back to Adam. " As in Adam all die,
so in Christ all are made alive" (Rom. 5 : 12-21; I Cor. 15 :
22.) Paul does not give us an elaborate theory as to how Adam's
sin is imputed to mankind. There is no clear evidence that he
held the view that Adam was the " official " head of the race
and that we sinned through him because he represented us in
a covenant relation. Nor does he assert that we sinned in Adam
because we were actually present in him when he sinned. This
theory is based on the supposition that since the race has come
out of Adam, we may properly assert that the race as a whole
was in Adam. These are speculations about Paul's teaching
rather than interpretations of it.

Paul clearly recognizes the principle of heredity. Adam was
the natural head of the race. Our tendency to sin is derived
from him. All men are affected by his act through the medium
of natural propagation.

This is a fact strongly emphasized by modern science. The
solidarity of the race is a profoundly significant truth. We can-

[293]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

not escape our relations to our progenitors. But as we shall
see later, in so far as we were under condemnation for the sin
of Adam, Christ has removed that condemnation. He too bears
a relation to the race as a whole. Solidarity and heredity are
beneficent principles when acting normally.

IV. THE CONSEQUENCES OP SIN

i. Sin Universal

It is clear from the facts which show the unity of mankind, and
the moral and spiritual history of the race, as well as from
the teachings of Scripture, that human sinfulness is universal.
' There is none righteous, no, not one " (Rom. 3 : 10-18).

The phrase " total depravity " has been employed in theology
to describe the sinful state of men. But it needs careful defining
lest it lead astray. In brief, it means that all the parts of our
nature have been affected by sin. It does not mean that men
are as bad as they can be, nor that all men are equally bad.
It does not mean that human nature is destitute of all good
impulses in the moral sense. It means rather that human nature,
as such, and in all its parts in its unregenerate state, is under the
dominion of sin.

The question arises here as to man's ability or inability. Man
is sometimes declared to possess " natural," but not " moral "
ability in things religious. By natural ability it is meant that he
possesses all human faculties and powers, including will and the
power of contrary choice. He is self-determined and not com
pelled in his actions. He is responsible and free. He is guilty
when he does wrong. He could do right if he would, because
he is equipped with the faculties for moral action.

On the other hand, it is asserted that man lacks " moral ability "
because he cannot change his own nature. He cannot radically
alter the bias of his will. The regenerating power of God's Spirit
is required. He must be born from above.

Now as we have defined these phrases both are true. But it is

[294]

Sin

doubtful whether their use is not misleading despite the defi
nitions. In our thought processes we sometimes are driven to
such distinctions for the purpose of producing orderly systems
of truth. But in appealing to men generally it is easy to mislead
by their use. If a man is told that he has " natural ability " in
religious things, he is likely to overlook his dependence on God's
grace. If he is told that he lacks " moral ability," he is in danger
of losing his sense of responsibility. The gospel appeal always
presupposes the divine initiative in salvation and the necessity
for divine grace. The Scriptures do not dwell upon man's
" moral inability," but rather upon his unwillingness to repent
and believe. Men are exhorted to turn from their evil ways
and live. This does not imply that God's grace is not required
if they are to do so. It implies rather that God's grace acts
through their own free response and choice of the right. The
first decisive result of grace in the heart is the free and glad
response of the sinner.

2. Guilt and Penalty

Other consequences of sin are guilt and penalty, a. Guilt is
the ill-desert of the sinner on account of his sin. Here we must
keep in mind the personal relation involved in sin. It is trans
gression of objective law in some cases. It is against the attribute
of divine justice. But it is more. Sin is man's personal opposi-/
tipn to the personal God. Guilt thus takes the form of self-
condemnation based on a sense of God's disapproval. In con
science guilt is not a sense of transgression against abstract law
or justice, but against the divine will. In Scripture also the most
intense expressions of the sense of guilt take the form of con
sciousness of the divine anger at sin. This appears especially in
the psalms and prophets. Of course there are degrees of guilt.
We have, for example, sins of ignorance and sins of knowledge,
sins of infirmity and sins of presumption, sins of partial and of
entire opposition to God's will. (Matt. 10 : 15; Luke 12 : 47,
48; John 19 : ii ; Rom. 2 : 12; Ps. 19 : 12; Matt. 12 : 31;
Mark 3 : 29.)

[295]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

b. Penalty is the effect produced on the sinner by his sin,
whether it be through the operation of natural, moral, or spiritual
law, or through the direct action of God. Penalty in any of its
forms is God's reaction against sin. Men reap what they sow
through the action of the laws of nature or their moral con
stitution in many cases of transgression. This is the divine
reaction against sin as truly as God's more direct action. But
God is not limited to these laws. He remains a free Person,
capable of employing various means to vindicate himself and his
government against wrong-doing. All penalty against sin is
based ultimately on the holy nature of God. God is immanent
in the world. His laws are not apart from him; like a self-
acting mechanism. God acts, his laws act, and God acts through
his laws. All these statements are required.

c. A question arises here as to the object of penalty. Does
God punish solely as a means of vindicating his justice, or does
he have in view the reformation of the sinner, or the good of
society? Divergent theories are based on opposing answers to
this question. There is, however, no necessary conflict between
these various aspects of punishment. As we have seen, the
individual man is a member of society. Heredity and solidarity
are facts. God has so made the world. As man cannot act
apart from his social relations, merely as an isolated unit or
atom; so it is inconceivable that God's dealings with him could
be without social effects. Moreover, if God really loves all men,
we cannot think of his love as being entirely suspended when he
punishes. He must desire the good of the sinful even when he
visits iniquity with stripes. Again, it is an error to assume
that God punishes merely to reform the sinner, or for the good
of society. His righteousness is an essential quality. He pun
ishes sin because it is sin and because his own nature neces
sarily reacts against it. Of course the incorrigible sinner is
cut off completely from the hope of reformation, and the society
of the sinner may be likewise an incorrigible society. But this
does not alter the truth that God never loses his good will toward
men. Men put themselves beyond the reach of his gracious

Sin

appeal, and only his vindicatory righteousness can find oppor
tunity for action. We conclude then, first, that because man is
responsible and deserves punishment, God punishes him ; secondly,
because man is a social being, God's penal action on the individual
necessarily affects society ; and thirdly, because God is essentially
righteous, he must needs punish the sinner in accordance with his
own nature.

d. The chief penalty of sin in the Scriptures is death, physi
cal and spiritual.

We consider first physical death. In Genesis 2 : 17 God de
clares to the man he had created that if he partook of the for
bidden fruit he would " surely die." In a great number of
passages in the Old and New Testaments alike, the death of the
body is declared to be the penalty for sin. In Romans 5 : 12
death is declared to have entered the world through sin. In
verse 21 Paul declares that sin reigned in death that grace
might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord. In Romans 6 : 23 we read that " the wages of
sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord." There is little need to give extended refer
ences on this point. The New Testament abounds in passages
which make it clear that physical death is regarded as a penalty
of sin.

The view is held by some that physical death is natural. It is
simply the expression of a biological law. Men were created
mortal in the sense that the body would die. Death is a beneficent
arrangement to prevent overpopulation of the earth, and to
enable the race to make progress by allowing room for new
generations of men. It is held that a natural law was given
a moral and penal significance when sin entered, so that death
became also a penal infliction. Man's fear of death and the suf
fering he endures thus become penalties for sin.

Scripture, however, does not seem to require this view. Enoch
and Elijah were translated without tasting death. Those who
are alive at Christ's second coming are to be translated, accord
ing tp Paul. (Cf. I Cor. 15 : 51 ; i Thess, 4 : 17.) At any rate,

[297]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

it is conceivable that God might have provided some other means
of exit from the world if man had not sinned. Whatever is
true as to the lower animals (and we recognize the biological
law), we are not shut up to the view that physical death was
the only possible ending of the earthly life of a sinless man. We
may add, however, that whatever view be held as to the biological
law of death as applied to all physical organisms, including that
of man, the Scripture teaching that death is a penal consequence
of sin remains. Physical death has become a much more terrible
thing as the result of man's sin and separation from God. The
sense of responsibility and of guilt has transformed it into a
formidable enemy. The foreboding and dread with which men
regard it has been immeasurably deepened by the reign of sin
in our human spirits. Thus a natural process might have been
included as a part of the penal consequences of sin by reason
of the intimate relation between the two. In Genesis 3 : 14 a
part of the curse against the serpent is seen to involve the natural
mode of locomotion of the latter : " Upon thy belly shalt thou
go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." This was
not a new mode of locomotion imposed on the serpent, but
rather a use of that which was natural as a means of emphasizing
the divine anger against transgression.

e. Spiritual death is the chief penalty of sin. This means
separation of the soul from God. It was this spiritual death
which followed " the day " of the first transgression. In i John
3 : 14 we read, " He that loveth not . . . abideth in death." In
Matthew 8 : 22 Jesus says : " Follow me ; and leave the dead
to bury their own dead." Here it is clear he means those who
are spiritually dead are to bury the dead body. Thus Jesus
as well as Paul declares that men are dead in sins. In Ephesians
2 : I Paul says his readers were once dead in trespasses and sins.

Eternal death is involved in the penalty against sin. It is
spiritual death when it has become permanent in the soul. Spir
itual death being the absence of spiritual life, separation from
God, and loss of fellowship with him and of blessedness which
attends that fellowship, it follows that eternal death is the soul's

[298]

Sin

permanent attitude of unbelief and sin, its wilful and final
separation from God.

V. SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF SIN THROUGH CHRISTIAN

EXPERIENCE

The consciousness of sin is one of the most real and pain
ful of all human experiences. The bondage and helplessness of
men who are held in its power are too manifest to be questioned.
It is a serious defect of some forms of theology that they make
no adequate provision for the fact of human bondage to sin and
for the sin- and guilt-consciousness which attends it. Men are
told to imitate Christ, or to strive to realize the consciousness
of Christ. Or they are told to claim their privilege as the natural
children of God, and to begin a new life thus. But a gospel
which thus limits itself overlooks certain fundamental truths.
Christ's consciousness was sinless. How then can the sinner,
under his sense of guilt and condemnation, imitate Christ? He
knows that death reigns in him while life reigned in Christ. How
can the sinner make the transition from his own consciousness
of sin to the consciousness of Christ? How can he claim son-
ship to God in any satisfying way when the very center of his
sin-consciousness is his sense of ethical unworthiness for son-
ship? To him it is incredible that one whose being is so under
bondage to evil can claim the moral likeness to God required
by sonship. No gospel which begins with any basal fact save
that of man's actual unworthiness and his sense of ill-desert
can meet the needs of men. In a word, the gospel of God's grace
is necessary to meet the fact and the consciousness of sin.

The following elements enter into the solution of the problem
of sin in Christian experience: First, the revelation of God in
Christ makes clear God's attitude toward the sinner. He desires
his salvation. Secondly, the atonement of Christ meets the
rational and moral difficulty involved. Through it the sinner
understands how forgiveness and justification and reconcilia
tion are possible, despite his own sense of unworthiness. Thirdly,

[ 299 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

his own sense of sin is in the first instance deepened rather
than removed. The Holy Spirit convicts him, overcomes him
with a sense of sin. But as the conviction heads up in un
belief, so also it is seen that faith in Christ is the sole con
dition of acceptance with God and deliverance. Thus the sin
ner's moral inability resolves itself into his unwillingness to
accept Christ. Fourthly, Christ is formed in the sinner, the hope
of glory, and through faith divine fellowship is restored. The
law of the Spirit of life in Christ makes free from the law of
sin and death. Fifthly, a new consciousness now takes the place
of the sinner's own guilt-consciousness. Tfiis new conscious
ness contains, first of all, a sense of reconciliation with God.
It contains a sense of ability to make moral progress. Aspiration
and desire now become victory instead of defeat. The sense of
moral and spiritual loneliness now gives place to a sense of the
inner presence of the Great Companion, the Comforter and
Helper. Religious desire is no longer a hopeless struggle through
human effort alone. It is not a soliloquy now, but a dialogue
between the soul and its God. His former cry of despair was,
" O wretched man that I am ! who shall deliver me out of this
body of death?" But now in triumph he exclaims, "I thank
God through Jesus Christ, our Lord " (Rom. 7 : 24, 25).

We may now see the contrast between the two theological
standpoints in their dealing with the consciousness of sin in man.
One seeks to minimize the consciousness of sin and guilt; the
other recognizes its reality and validity. One holds that God's
anger is merely subjective ; the other that it is objective and
real. One denies the cause; the other recognizes it and seeks
to remove it. One emphasizes the appeal of God's love apart
from Christ's atoning death ; the other urges repentance on the
ground of that death.

VI. OBJECTIONS TO THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SIN

Before concluding the subject of sin, two objections need to
be considered briefly. The first is an arraignment of the moral

[300]

Sin s

system of God. Men urge that it is unjust to hold men re
sponsible for the working of a system in which they seem to be
victims rather than transgressors. The reasoning is as follows:
Heredity predisposes to sin; man's earliest consciousness is
scarcely moral at all; he is born into an environment which also
predisposes to sin. Thus he is, as it were, flung out into a universe
where transgression is inevitable by reason of the forces which
operate within and around him.

The answer to this objection is not difficult where all the facts
are taken into account. It runs thus: Condemnation is not for
hereditary sin, but only for actual sin. Christ died for the race
as a whole and removed the curse so far as condemnation for the
racial sin is concerned. The solidarity of the race is a fact. But
environment is not all bad. There are many redemptive in
fluences at work all around us in Christian lands. The infant
consciousness, it is true, is without moral discernment. But this
negative condition is an opportunity for good as well as evil
influences. There are degrees of guilt. Men are penalized ac
cording to the light against which they sin. The unity and
solidarity of the race is a fact most favorable for moral character
when good influences prevail. The individual is buoyed and
sustained by ten thousand agencies of good. The aim of the
gospel is in part to convert heredity and environment and all
social forces into beneficent agencies in a kingdom of righteous
ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. We may well
believe that such a system is far better than one in which men
would be merely detached atoms. We can only judge God's
moral order by its prospective outcome taken along with its
present organization. The end will justify the beginning.

The second objection relates to the salvation of infants dying
in infancy. If the principle of hereditary sin is true, how can
the vast multitudes of infants who die in infancy be saved?

In reply it may be said that there is comparatively little direct
teaching in the Scriptures as to the salvation of infants dying
in infancy. And yet there is abundant indirect evidence, as we
have already seen.

[ 30T 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Again, it is entirely clear from the New Testament that Christ's
union with the human race made his atoning work efficacious in
some measure for all mankind. " As in Adam all die, so in Christ
are all made alive" (i Cor. 15 : 22). This does not teach
unive.rsalism, but it suggests that there is a similarity between
the racial effects of the act of Adam and that of Christ. Christ
" died for all " (2 Cor. 5 : 15) ; or as it is elsewhere expressed,
he tasted death for every man. (Heb. 2:9.) Men are not con
demned therefore for hereditary or original sin. They are con
demned only for their own sins. They are called to repentance
and faith by the gospel. It is their own act of rejection which is
the basis of their condemnation. Infants dying in infancy can
not repent, or believe, or perform works of any kind, good or
bad. We do not know how the grace of God operates in them.
But we are fully assured that Christ provided for them, and that
they are created anew in him and saved.

302]

CHAPTER XIII
THE SAVING WORK OF CHRIST

I. THE THREEFOLD OFFICE OF CHRIST

work of Christ is usually summed up as a threefold
activity of prophet, priest, and king. Some prefer to de
scribe his atonement as a sacrificial rather than a priestly
work. Either term, properly understood, will answer the needs
of the case. Christ was both priest and sacrifice. Both ele
ments enter into the proper view of his work.

As prophet, Jesus reveals God to men and he reveals men
to themselves. He is the crown of Old Testament prophecy
and the perfect prophet. Old Testament teachings in ritual and
ceremonial laws, in moral precepts, and in spiritual meaning, all
converge upon and unite in him. In his person he is the " truth "
as well as the " way " and the " life." His miracles as well as
his parables are filled with moral meaning. He gradually led his
disciples to the higher conception of his Messiahship and his
kingdom. In every act of his life, including his voluntary death,
as well as in his words, Jesus taught men the truth. He pre
dicted regarding the future of the kingdom and revealed new
truth to his disciples after his death.

The priestly work of Christ was accomplished especially in his
atoning death. As the atonement is to be dealt with more fully,
little need be said here. Jesus was the perfect high priest and
the perfect sacrifice. His work forever abolished the need of
priest and sacrifice in man's approach to God. Herein appears
an aspect of Christianity which shows it to be the completion
of other religions, and also that it is the final religion. The
Epistle to the Hebrews develops this thought in a very impressive
way.

The kingly office of Christ appears in various ways. The Old
Testament Messianic ideal took the form of perfect kingship.

[303]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The Hebrew word (Mashiach) and the Greek word (Christos),
translated Messiah, both mean the " anointed one," and this
points directly to kingship. In the New Testament, as king,
Christ founds the kingdom of God; he claims the obedience of
men; he speaks with authority; works miracles; he claims all
authority as Messiah; he establishes the ordinances; founds the
church; conquers death; commissions the disciples to preach the
gospel; ascends to the right hand of God; intercedes for his
people ; and will reign until all his enemies are subdued.

It is impossible, however, to separate entirely the prophetic,
priestly, and kingly offices of Christ. They are interdependent
forms of activity and blend with each other at many points. For
example, his priestly work of atonement is a vital element in his
prophetic work. By his sacrificial death he reveals the nature
of God as holy love. Again, as Lord and King, he gives efficacy
to the priestly work of atonement as the gospel is preached to
men. So also in the salvation of men and in the progress of the
kingdom on earth his prophetic office continues because it is his
person, teaching, and work which are the contents of the sav
ing gospel. The Holy Spirit takes the things of Christ and shows
them to men.

II. THE ATONEMENT

Special attention must be given to that part of the saving work
of Christ which he accomplished in the atonement through his
sufferings and death. This is due to several facts. One is that
the atonement is central in the teachings of the New Testament.
Another is that it has occupied a large place in theological dis
cussion, and is a vital and essential element in an effective
gospel. A third fact is that it has ever been a fundamental ele
ment in the experience of Christians.

Xs we shall soon see, the writers of the New Testament repre
sent the atonement of Christ under various forms. They also
employ a number of figures of speech, no one of which, taken
by itself, gives an adequate idea of the atonement. In some pas
sages the death of Christ is described as a propitiation. In others

[304]

The Saving Work of Christ

it is reconciliation. Sometimes it is simply redemption. In some
passages it is described in its effects as securing remission of sins.
Sometimes his death is called a ransom. In other passages it is
the purchase price paid for our deliverance. So also Christ is
declared to have become a curse for us.

In all the above forms of statement and in others which are
not mentioned it is abundantly clear that the death of Christ
stands in a very intimate and vital relation with the salvation
of men. Many theories have arisen in the course of history to
explain that relation. Most of them emphasize an element of
truth and are defective in what they omit rather than in what
they assert. The final view should contain the true elements in
all theories. And it will be found that by the simple and direct
method of taking the New Testament statements in their proper
meaning and constructing a theory out of these teachings we
shall arrive at the most satisfactory conclusion. A theory in
such case will be simply an interpretation of facts.

There are some who object to any effort to discover the mean
ing of Christ's death. They insist upon our teaching and preach
ing the " fact " as opposed to the " theory " of atonement. The
reply is obvious. Theory may not be the best word here. But
theory simply expresses meaning. It is of course absurd to try to
exclude all meaning from the death of Christ. Again, no moral
or spiritual fact can be a fact for an intelligent being without a
meaning. The fact does not become a fact for intelligence apart
from its meaning. A dose of medicine given to relieve physical
pain might do its work without a grasp of its meaning by the
patient. But in the higher realm of spirit fact and meaning
are inseparable. 'Apart from their meaning religious facts be
come mere magical agencies. Religion becomes priestcraft under
this view and sinks to the old level of superstition and bondage.
A third reply is that Christianity cannot afford to abjure intel
ligence. We must dare to seek the meaning of every part of the
religion of Christ. We shall not succeed completely, just as
men do not discover all of truth in any other realm. But re
ligion must not plead exemption from the task of searching for

u [305]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

meanings and the further task of setting forth the meanings
of all its great realities.

III. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THEORIES

We shall give a very brief sketch of some of the leading
theories of the atonement by way of preparing the way for a
positive statement.

1. We need only to mention the early patristic view that the
death of Christ was a ransom paid by God to Satan to redeem
men who were held as Satan's captives. The view is revolting to
the Christian moral consciousness. It was based on an effort to
express the full meaning of atonement by means of the single
figure of a ransom while ignoring various other forms of repre
sentation in the New Testament. It was held that if Christ's
death was a ransom, it must have been paid by some one to
some one else ; that there must have been prisoners held by right
of conquest and requiring ransom for deliverance; that, as it
was unreasonable to think of God paying a ransom to himself, it
was the devil who must be paid. Hence the theory arose. No
one holds it to-day. It illustrates the partial and fragmentary
method of dealing with the Scripture passages bearing on the
atonement.

2. X later view set forth by Anselm in the eleventh century put
much emphasis upon the idea of divine honor or majesty and
the debt of sinful men. Sin violates God's honor. It deserves
infinite punishment since God is infinite. Man cannot pay be
cause He is finite and morally bankrupt through sin. Christ in
his atoning death paid the debt. This he could do because as
divine he could pay an infinite debt, and as sinless and human
he could represent men. But as sinless he was not obliged to die.
Hence by death he obtained (on the Catholic theory) an excess
of merit which could be placed to the credit of sinners. Anselm's
view is an improvement on the ransom-to-Satan theory because
it connects the atonement with a requirement of God. But it
is wrought out in abstract terms of honor, justice, satisfaction,

[306]

The Saving Work of Christ

and merit, apart from regard for the personal relations between
God and man, and the specific New Testament teaching. It em
phasizes God's honor rather than his righteous love, and leaves
the atonement rather an external act than a vital divine deed
for human redemption.

3. Hugo Grotius, in the early part of the seventeenth century,
propounded what is known as the governmental theory of the
atonement. In this view God's government rather than his honor,
or his righteousness, is central. To pardon sinners without show
ing the heinousness of sin and the majesty of violated law would
endanger moral government. The death of Christ was God's
exhibition of his own high estimate of law and of his condemna
tion of sin. Christ did not suffer the penalty of man's sin, but
demonstrated the penal principle in divine government. His suf
ferings were substituted for man's punishment. God could thus
pardon sinners without peril to his government.

This view is also inadequate. The atonement does indeed re
spect God's government. But it is a more vital and internal
event both for God and man than a mere means of maintaining
government. The government of God is the outward expression
of his nature. His approach to man is on the basis of his own
spiritual nature and the moral and spiritual laws of man's being.
The maintenance of government expresses, therefore, not the
most central truth of the atonement, but a secondary result, as
we shall see. To understand the atonement we must view it in
relation to that which is central in God, righteous love, and in
relation to the reproduction of that love in sinful men.

4. A fourth theory is known as the Socinian or example theory
of the atonement. Modern Unitarians follow Laelius and Faustus
Socinus in the sixteenth century in holding this view. The theory
is that Christ's death was merely a martyr's death. His example
of loyalty to the truth, even unto death, inspires us men to heroic
moral struggle and victory. God needs no atonement, and man
needs none apart from this. Our sense of sin, guilt, and con
demnation is subjective. There is no obstacle to pardon in God.
Our repentance is all he requires.

[307]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

In reply, we need only say that while we recognize the element
of truth in the theory, it is nevertheless far short of the whole
truth of the atonement. Jesus was indeed a martyr to truth, but
far more. The view as stated provides for merely a small frac
tion of the New Testament teaching on the subject. It is at vari
ance with the Christian experience of the centuries. It is void of
the great elements of power in the gospel of God's grace which
has been the moving force in Christianity from the beginning.

5. A fifth view of the atonement is best described as the moral
influence theory. It has come to be one of the most popular of
modern theories and has been held by many leading preachers and
theologians. Its chief characteristic is its claim that in the atoning
work of Christ no necessity of the divine nature was met. The
aim of the atonement was rather to influence men to repent. God
was already reconciled. The atonement was the expression of
God's love and sympathy for sinful men. The incarnation united
Christ to the sinful race, and his death was the outcome of his
sympathetic efforts for their salvation. There was no obstacle
to forgiveness in God. The only obstacle was man's own un
belief and stubborn will. Its effect is to move men to repentance
and loving obedience.

Here again we have a partial truth. The moving power of
Christ's death is unquestioned. But it was more than a moving
spectacle addressed to men. The theory fails to explain many
passages of Scripture which we shall soon consider. It does not
satisfy the requirements of Christian experience. There are
other elements in justification than those suggested by the moral
influence theory. Besides, the theory seems very unreal and
dramatic. Spectacular suffering on the part of Christ, merely to
touch the human heart, is an irrational conception. A father
might be badly burned in the effort to rescue his child which
had fallen in the fire. We would applaud such a deed. But
we would consider a father lacking in rationality who should
call his child to the fireside and then attempt to prove his love
by thrusting his hand in the flame. Unless the necessity for
Christ's death is found somehow in the nature of things, that is,

[308]

The Saving Work of Christ

in the moral constitution of man and in the nature of God, then
we come short of an adequate explanation. This theory is in
principle much like a perversion of the biblical view to which
it is often opposed. That perversion starts with the necessity
for " satisfying " justice. But it thinks of justice as an ab
straction, a detached attribute of God which is angry. The death
of Christ appeases the anger of this detached attribute, and thus
love, another detached attribute, can freely act. So that the
atonement is thought of as a means of reconciling the two attri
butes of God which are at war with each other. The error of
the view is in its abstract conception of justice and satisfaction,
and in its failure to show the necessary connection between
Christ's death and its object, the salvation of men. The theory
leaves the atonement outside the moral and spiritual necessities
of mankind, and unrelated to our need. The moral influence
theory is equally abstract. It converts the atonement into a
mere dramatic spectacle and appeal, grounded in no great and
fundamental moral and spiritual necessities. It involves a suf
fering and humiliation of Christ having no inherent and vital
connection with the end in view, and hence an unworthy view of
God. It fails to explain the prayer and agony and bloody sweat
of Christ in Gethsemane, and his forsaken cry on the cross.
Unless there was more in his death than this theory supposes,
Christ was less heroic in his death than some of his followers
have been, who have gone singing to the martyr's stake. Early
Christianity abounds in such instances.

6. There have been variations of the moral influence theory.
McLeod Campbell held that Christ was the representative penitent.
He, being one with the human race, by his incarnation shared
with men their sin- and guilt-consciousness and actually repented
for mankind while remaining sinless himself. On the basis of
his representative penitence God forgives sinners.

In reply, we recognize the truth that Christ did repudiate sin,
and that he was in organic relations with the race. But it is a
strained use of language to say that he repented. Christ could
not repent in the strict sense. The view of Campbell is incon-

f 309 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

sistent with other views of the advocates of the moral influence
theory. Those advocates object to substitution on the Godward
side in Christ's death. Campbell's view asserts substitution, or
at least representation in the sense of substitution, on the man-
ward side. If the principle of substitution is wrong in one case,
it is also in the other. The true view recognizes the principle,
but defines it in a more adequate way.

F. D. Maurice emphasized the unity of Christ with the race.
In his sufferings the race suffered. He thus became the " sin
less root " of a new race. By union with him men enter a new
life, and in the end will share the sinlessness of Christ.

Here again the unity of Christ with the human race is a vital
truth and one essential to a correct view of the atonement. It is
also true that Christ became, in a figurative sense of course, the
" sinless root " of a new humanity. But this does not approxi
mate, much less exhaust, the biblical teachings on the subject of
the atonement, as we shall at once see.

7. Sometimes an effort is made to minimize the historical
atoning act of Christ by the assertion that the atonement was an
eternal act of God, and that the event on Calvary was a mere
incident of the greater reality. It is not necessary to reply at
length. The offering of Christ was indeed an eternal atonement
in the sense that it was the expression of an eternal impulse of
God's love, an eternal desire to give himself for the good of his
creatures; and also in the sense that it is eternally efficacious.
But it was none the less necessary as a historical act. It was the
expression of God's nature, but its historical form was necessary
to its operation in the realm of history in order to produce a moral
kingdom among men.

IV. GENERAL PRELIMINARY STATEMENTS AS TO THE BIBLICAL

DOCTRINE

There are a few general remarks which will prepare for a satis
factory study of the atonement as it is set forth in the New
Testament.

The Saving Work of Christ

1. The first is that it is important to include all phases of the
New Testament teaching which may be found necessary to this
end. The atonement is a great subject with many sides. It may
be approached from many angles. It is easy to be one-sided and
fragmentary in dealing with the New Testament material. Care
should be taken to include all the vital aspects of the subject.

2. Again, we should be on our guard against fallacies which
arise through abstract processes of thought. As one reads the
many books on the atonement produced by men of all schools of
theology, one is deeply impressed with the tendency to deal with
the subject in an abstract manner: almost every leading word
and idea has been so conceived: the idea of law, as some vague
abstraction which Christ satisfied; the idea of penalty so stated
as to involve Christ himself in actual sin ; the wrath of God con
ceived as fierce anger poured out on Christ instead of its true
New Testament meaning as God visiting sin with its just penalty ;
the idea of substitution conceived as if the transfer of sin and
righteousness were physical acts instead of moral and spiritual
deeds; and the idea of salvation as if it were a mere matter of
bookkeeping with a debit and credit side of the account — this
and nothing more.

In like manner the tendency to abstract modes of thought has
led to fallacies about God and the persons of the Trinity. For
example, the attribute of justice has been thought of in conflict
with the attribute of love, and men have thought of a war of the
attributes which ended with the atonement. Or the Father has
been conceived of as if he were angry with men until Christ
died and then for the first time began to love them. Thus men
have thought of a conflict in the Godhead between Father and
Son. Such conflict has at times seemed to be implied in the
statements of those who hold the essentials of the New Testa
ment view, or it has been alleged against them by their opponents.

Another example of the tendency to abstract modes of thought
about the atonement has been the exaltation of some one attribute
or quality of God to the supreme place. We name two or three
instances. Some have thought that the mere will of God apart

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

from his nature, his righteousness or love, is the ground of the
saving value of Christ's death. There was no inward necessity
in the nature of God or man, but only the divine appointment.
This view is wholly untenable to all who understand the relation
of will to nature. The will is the expression of the nature.
Others make the love of God the sole moving power in atonement.
Righteousness is held to be subordinate to love. Yet others make
righteousness fundamental and assert that the exercise of love
is optional with God while righteousness or holiness is imperative
in its demands. Now it is difficult to see how any act of God
can be unrighteous or unloving, or how God's will can ever be
properly conceived as acting apart from his nature. Outward
conditions among free beings will lead to variation in God's
methods, but not to suppression of any quality in his nature. He
always acts as a free personality in the totality of his being
and not in separated parts of his nature. We cannot understand
the atonement unless we keep this in mind.

3. A third general statement is that the best guide to a clear
understanding of the atonement is a direct study of the facts
involved. These are recorded in the Gospels and Epistles of the
New Testament, and they are reflected in modern Christian ex
perience. This direct study is the scientific method of approach.
If faithfully pursued, it will save us from many errors and re
duce to clearness much that has been complicated in discussions
of the atonement. Thus our doctrine will rest on a basis of fact.

4. A fourth general statement relates to the New Testament
teaching as to law in connection with the atoning work of
Christ. This refers particularly to the writings of the apostle
Paul. Many have sought to show contradictory elements in Paul.
They have claimed that there are juridical, or forensic and out
wardly legalistic elements in Paul's writings side by side with
others which are vital, spiritual, and inward, and these diverse
elements remain unreconciled. The view is that Paul as a Chris
tian never overcame fully the Jewish standpoint.

Now we recognize fully the inward and spiritual nature of
Christianity. But Christianity is not a lawless religion. Its laws

The Saving Work of Christ

are not statutory and outward, but vital and inward and personal,
written indelibly in man's constitution and in God's nature. This
truth appears everywhere in Paul's writings. For him the gos
pel is " the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus " (Rom. 8:2).
But Paul deals with law in the outward sense in certain con
nections. Statutory law as taught by Moses, the law of outward
commands as recognized by the natural conscience and embodied
in human codes generally, are treated by him. But it is a serious
misreading of Paul to assert that this element in his teaching con
tradicts the spiritual element. On the contrary, the real key to
the interpretation of Paul is the recognition of the uniform man
ner in which he asserts and proves that in the gospel all out
ward and statutory law becomes inward and spiritual. In his
gospel he digests and assimilates, as it were, all forms of right
eousness as expressed in outward commands. He transfigures
and glorifies them through their relationship to Christ. This will
become very manifest in his doctrine of atonement and justifica
tion. In these the law of Christianity is the law of the Spirit
and the law of Life. The merely formal and outward, the
merely juridical and statutory, is abolished.

V. THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

We need to keep in mind the preceding general statements in
considering the biblical teachings as to the atonement. Other
wise we are likely to import much into these teachings which
comes from human speculation. We should keep strictly to the
biblical facts and their clear meaning.

I. We consider first the motive of the atoning work of Christ.
The motive is the love of God. This is abundantly evident from
many New Testament passages. In the epitomized gospel in John
3 : 1 6 we read that " God so loved the world, that he gave his
only begotten Son." In the next verse we read : " For God
sent not his Son into the world to judge the world ; but that the
world should be saved through him." Again in Romans 5:8:
" But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while

r 313 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." It is needless to
multiply references. These and many other passages show clearly
that God does not love us because Christ died for us, but rather
that Christ died for us because God loved us. His life and death
are the expression of God's love, not the producing cause of
that love. Of course the love which is the moving cause of the
atonement is a righteous love. It is the love of the holy God for
men. The atonement in all its elements must be understood as
the provision and expression of such love. It will be found
consistent at all points with righteous love.

2. Observe next the end of the atonement. What did God have
in view in the gift of his Son? The New Testament answer
takes several forms. We select a few which will serve our
present purpose. The most comprehensive general answer is
man's salvation. This contains two elements. One deals with
the presence and power of sin. The other with the ideal of
righteousness. On the side of sin the Gospels and Epistles are in
complete agreement. Space forbids an exhaustive array of the
passages. In Matthew 26 : 28 Jesus says, " For this is my blood
of the new covenant, which is poured out for many unto re
mission of sins." He had already declared (Matt. 20 : 28) that
he had come " to give up his life a ransom for many." In the
Fourth Gospel a similar statement is made by John the Baptist.
He sees Jesus coming, and says, " Behold the lamb of God, that
taketh away the sin of the world " (John I : 29). In the Epis
tles this truth is repeated in one form or another so often that it
can only be understood as the universal belief of early Christians.
In Ephesians I : 7 we read, " in whom (i. e., in Christ) we have
our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our tres
passes, according to the riches of his grace." From those
passages we conclude that the death of Christ secured in some
way the remission or forgiveness of sins. Of course this carries
with it freedom from condemnation and judgment which falls
upon sinners because of their sins.

As to the ideal of righteousness the object of the atonement
is equally clear. In Ephesians 2 : .10 we read, " For we are his

The Saving Work of Christ

workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which
God afore prepared that we should walk in them." In Ephesians
i : 4 the purpose of God in Christ is " that we should be holy
and without blemish before him in love." The purpose of
God as realized in a holy church and a holy kingdom is also made
clear in various places. (Eph. 3 : 10; 5 : 25-27; Rom. 14 : 17.)
The ultimate end of the mediatorial work of Christ is the mani
festation of the sons of God. In Romans 8 : 19 we read, u For
the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the revealing
of the sons of God." In Hebrews 2 : 10 again we read, " For it
became him, for whom are all things, . . in bringing many sons
unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through
sufferings."

Now these texts and many others abundantly show the ethical
nature of the atonement in its end and purpose. To sum it up :
(i) It is God's method of bestowing forgiveness or remission
of sins. (2) It is God's method of producing righteous men and
women. (3) It is God's means of creating a holy society. (4)
It is God's way of producing a holy society in which Fatherhood
and sonship shall be the supreme expression of the relationship
between God and men.

With this understanding of the motive and end of the atone
ment, we shall find less difficulty in understanding the fact itself.
We remark, therefore :

3. That the atonement of Christ was the means adopted by
God, in the exercise of his righteous love toward sinful men, to
secure the full and free activity of that love in bestowing for
giveness and in perfecting individual men and women in a holy
society of sons and daughters of God.

As God's means to the above end the atonement of Christ in
volved the following :

(i) Identification with the race he came to redeem. This
point is strongly emphasized in Hebrews 2 : 14-18, which reads
in part as follows : " Since then the children are sharers in flesh
and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same;
that through death he might bring to naught him that had the

[315]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all them
who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to
bondage. For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he
giveth help to the seed of Abraham. Wherefore it behooved him
in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be
come a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to
God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." The same
truth appears in another form in Galatians 4 : 4, 5 : " When the
fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a
woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that
were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."
There are numerous other passages which are equally explicit,
such as John I : 1-18; Philippians 2 : 5-11 ; Colossians I : 14-20.

The conclusion from these New Testament teachings is that
the incarnation was God's method of coming into saving rela
tions with mankind. By this means Jesus became one with the
race in a profound and real sense.

Now this unity and identity of Christ with mankind had a back
ward and a forward reference. The backward reference was to
his original relation to the human race. As we have already seen,
man was made in the image of Christ. He is the natural bond of
mankind. The new spiritual head of that race was the original
creative head. In becoming flesh, as John declares, Jesus Christ
came to " his own " although " his own rejected him."

The forward reference of Christ's unity with mankind is to his
causal action in our salvation. He took flesh, entered human
conditions, in order that he might become an effective power for
man's redemption. The power of sin rendered man incapable of
self-redemption. He could not lift himself above himself. A
new power from without was required, and yet a power acting
from within according to moral and spiritual laws.

Thus we see that the backward reference of the incarnation
connects Christ with God. He was the divine Son. The forward
reference connects him with our need, deliverance from the
power of sin and the attainment of righteousness. Being one
with God and one with man he could act for both.

The Saving Work of Christ

One caution is needed here. The unity of Christ with the
race in no way affects the other truth of his apartness from the
race by reason of his sinlessness. He was one with mankind, but
" separate from sinners." Hence in two respects the unity is a
qualified unity. As sinless he remained apart from sinful men.
As sinless he could do for them what they could not do for
themselves.

(2) We remark, in the second place, that as God's means
for securing our salvation the atonement of Christ implied a
previous life of obedience. The atoning death was itself an act
of obedience. Theology has sometimes made much of the dis
tinction between the active and the passive obedience of Christ.
But it is a distinction difficult to maintain consistently. The ac
tive and passive elements were combined at every stage.- In his
career as teacher and preacher he constantly suffered. Heroic
endurance was the constant task of his holy will against human
unbelief and sin and " the gainsaying of sinners." The pas
sive elements entered all the so-called active obedience. On
the other hand the so-called passive obedience was also active.
One of the most remarkable things about the death of Jesus
was its voluntariness. He willed to die. In John 10 : 14-18 he
states this truth and emphasizes it by repetition several times.
In verse 15 he says, " I lay down my life for the sheep." Again
in verse 17, " Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay
down my life that I may take it again." Then in order to bring
into sharp and clear expression the fact that his death was the
result of his own voluntary act he says : " No one taketh it away
from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay
it down and I have power to take it again " (ver. 18). Again in
John 19 : 30 it is declared of Jesus on the cross that he said:
" It is finished ; and he bowed his head and gave up his Spirit."
The expression " gave up " may be translated " sent forth," as
indicating his own act. Again in Hebrews 9 : 14 the state
ment is made that Christ " through the eternal Spirit offered him
self without blemish unto God " ; and in Hebrews 10 : i-io, in
which reference is made to Christ's sacrificial death, the central

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

truth is declared to be his own moral act of obedience : " Then
said I, Lo, I am come (in the volume of the book it is written
of me) to do thy will, O God."

Our conclusion is that in every act of his life Christ conformed
to the perfect moral law. Or rather we should say he was the
embodiment, the incarnation of the moral ideal. It was the
moral ideal in its filial form. His life was the perfect answer of
the Son to the supreme requirements of the holy Father.

(3) We remark, in the third place, that the atonement as God's
means for securing the salvation of men involved the subjection
of Christ to the operation of the law of sin and death. The bare
historical fact of Christ's death is clear evidence of this truth.
Jesus died despite the fact that he was holy. We have already
cited Scriptures which teach that remission of sin is thus secured.
There is great abundance of material on the subject. A few
leading passages will suffice. In I Peter 2 : 24 we read, " who his
own self bare our sins in his body on the tree, that we, having
died unto sins, might live unto righteousness." Again in 2 Corin
thians 5 : 21 we read: "Him who knew no sin he made to be
sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of
God in him." Again, in Romans 3 : 24-26 there are a number
of statements made, summing up the essential points in the aton
ing work of Christ as follows: (a) We are justified freely by
his grace; (b) God set forth Christ as a propitiation for our
sins; (c) the benefits are available to us through faith; (d) the
object in view was the exhibition of God's righteousness, because
of the passing over of former sins; and finally (e) that God
might be just and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus.

The question arises : Why was it necessary for Christ to
suffer death in order to redeem sinners? This is the point of
chief difficulty in the doctrine of the atonement. Here diverse
answers are given. Here controversy arises. And yet if we
avoid abstractions about law, and wrath, and justice, and deal
with the concrete realities, with the facts themselves, the answer
to the question is not as difficult as some have made it. It was a
necessary means to a definite end.

The Saving Work of Christ

Here we must keep in mind a few cardinal facts. The first is
the necessary connection between sin and death. " The wages
of sin is death " (Rom. 6 : 23). Death is related to sin as penalty.
This means not physical death only, but also spiritual death or
separation from God. The connection between sin and death is
not an arbitrary appointment of God. It is the expression of
an eternal law of the divine nature itself. Our own spiritual
consciousness confirms the law. Death, or separation from God
in our moral and spiritual consciousness, is the negation of all
life and blessedness, of all peace and holiness.

A second fact to be kept in mind is that the law of sin and
death was operative in the sinful race. The sin-death principle,
as we may call it, held man in its power. It was a racial power
affecting all mankind.

A third fact to be borne in mind is that if men are to be
redeemed from the power of the sin-death principle, that power
must be broken. It must be annulled. This is clearly Paul's view
of the matter. He says in Romans 8:2," For the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of
sin and death." In the third verse he continues, " For what the
law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God,
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh/'

The thought in Paul's mind is this: This sin-death principle
operative in humanity must be overcome and destroyed by the
obedience-life principle operative in Christ. In other words,
Christ's death was God's means of relating himself in a saving
way to sinful men. Christ became organically one with men,
even to the point of dying for them in order that his righteous
ness might become a saving power in the race. The law of the
Spirit of life in him overcame thus the law of sin and death in
them. The atonement was thus a means adopted to secure a
definite end. The end and means were not arbitrary appointments.
Both arose out of inherent necessities in the moral kingdom.
They were grounded in the moral nature of God and man. They
are a clear instance of spiritual cause and effect.

[319]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

VI. ATONEMENT AND THE DIVINE IMMANENCE

Light is shed on the atonement when we consider it as God's
method of becoming immanent in a sinful race. God's tran
scendence is a truth to be kept always in mind. Its correlative
truth is God's immanence in the world. God is everywhere im
manent (that is, he indwells) in nature. He also indwells in
man so far as his body and his moral constitution are concerned.
But God is not immanent in man's sin- and guilt-consciousness
as he is elsewhere. Sin has separated man from God. Yet God
must dwell in man if man is to become God's holy son.

The absence of God from the natural human consciousness is
seen in the failure to attain the moral ideal. Man perceives the
right as an ideal, but attains the ideal at no point in his ex
perience. The moral ideal transcends him. It is an ideal rooted
in God for which man hungers and thirsts, but which he can
not attain.

Jesus Christ is the supreme and perfect embodiment in human
form of the moral ideal. The incarnation, therefore, is the
descent of the transcendent moral ideal in God into the human
race. It is God becoming immanent in the race. It is the tran
scendent God becoming immanent in the world among free
beings, who are held by the power of sin, in order to its salvation.
The death of Christ on the cross was thus the God of holy
love projecting himself into the life of the race by overcoming
the sin-death principle in the race. In other words, God's im
manence thus becomes a new law of life, operating in an ethical
and spiritual manner for the salvation of men. It is a new life
force acting graciously for human redemption. If Christ's ap
proach to man had stopped short of dying, if he had been
translated without tasting death, he would have remained apart
from man at the point of his deepest need. He would have then
disclosed a shining moral goal indeed, but it would have been
left suspended in midair with no point of contact for sinners.
It would have remained transcendent. Men would have re
mained powerless to attain it.

[320]

The Saving Work of Christ

The gift of the Holy Spirit was necessary to complete the
process of the divine immanence through the atonement. The
day of Pentecost was a necessary sequel to the event on Cal
vary. The life in and through Christ must become a reality in
the heart of the individual and in the Christian community. Now
the Holy Spirit's work is to take the things of Christ and show
them to believers. This means the creation in them of Christ's
moral image. The attainment of Christ's moral image is the
destiny of all Christians. And the beginning of the Spirit's work
in the individual takes the form of a death to sin and a resur
rection to righteousness. The sin-death principle is first of all
broken, annulled, in the individual consciousness. The cross-
principle is cardinal in the new creation in Jesus Christ.

In this way the mystical or spiritual union between Christ
and the believer takes place. As Paul expresses it : "I have been
crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ
that liveth in me, and that life which I now live in the flesh I
live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself up for me" (Gal. 2 : 20). In short, Paul is
so conscious of the presence of Christ in him and of the death
of the old nature that he has become a new person. The old
man is dead. A new man has arisen. The new man is simply
the growing image of Christ in him. Thus God in Christ has
become immanent in Paul's consciousness through the creative
activity of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual cause and effect come
into clear expression here. The destruction of the sin-death
principle on the cross when Christ made atonement, has become
a redemptive force in the inner life of Paul through the de
struction of the sin-death principle in him. The transcendent
moral ideal in God passed through Calvary into the human
consciousness. The historic act now issues in subjective experi
ence. Atonement becomes reconciliation within as well as with
out. In becoming flesh and dying Christ became one with the
race of sinners. In regeneration and justification he becomes
one with the individual, and through the redeemed individuals he
creates a new race.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

VII. THE VITAL AND LEGAL ELEMENTS IN THE ATONEMENT

The preceding exposition has dealt with the vital principle in
the atonement. There is also a legal element. But by legal we
do not mean any artificial or merely external or arbitrary ar
rangement. We mean simply that the vital principle of the atone
ment is the expression of moral and spiritual law. Most of the
errors as to the atonement have arisen through a failure to con
ceive and treat properly the relation of the vital to the so-called
legal element. The atonement is the transformation and glorifica
tion of law. In it law becomes the expression of life. Writers
have often defined law in an abstract artificial manner and then
proceeded to demolish what they called a " legal " or " judicial "
atonement. In so doing they failed to grasp the New Testament
point of view.

Let us consider now the elements of law in the atoning work
of Christ. We can best do so by a series of questions and an
swers.

i. The first question is, How was the atoning death of Christ
the satisfaction of law? The answer is that it was the satis
faction of those laws which were involved in the atoning act
itself. The idea of law or justice is not to be conceived abstractly,
as if it were something apart from God, a hungry beast, waiting
to be satisfied. Christ satisfied law and justice in the atonement
because at all points he conformed to the requirements of the
eternally Holy One whose laws found expression in the moral
order. Christ entered to make atonement. The laws, then, which
Christ satisfied and to which in his atoning work he conformed,
were simply those laws which he encountered in the saving en
terprise itself. There are at least four forms or aspects of law
which were involved : ( I ) The moral law generally, including
the Mosaic law. He fulfilled in his person the highest moral
ideal. That ideal is grounded in God's nature. His obedience
was perfect. It was law embodied in a life. (2) He became
subject also to the operation of the law of sin and death. This
was also the expression of the divine nature. The death penalty

[ 322 ]

The Saving Work of Christ

is the negative aspect of the law of holiness. It is God's reaction
against sin, but he became so identified with sinners that he
suffered death at their hands and in himself bore the consequences
of their sin. (3) He also obeyed perfectly the law of filial loy
alty and devotion. The filial ideal is simply the moral law in
its highest expression. He was the perfect Son, and nowhere
did his sonship please the Father more than in his death for
sinful men. (4) Thus also he satisfied the love of God for men.
Love prompted the atonement. In it love as well as righteousness
was completely fulfilled.

2. The next question is, In what sense were the sufferings of
Christ penal? Ordinarily the words penal and penalty refer
to personal guilt. Christ did not personally sin. Hence he could
not have borne a penalty in the ordinary sense. But he did bear
the penal consequences of the sin of the race because of his com
plete identification with it. Death is the penalty of sin. Christ
died. He died at the hands of sinful men, while giving himself
freely to deliver them from the power of the sin-death principle
operative in them.

3. The third question is this, Did Christ in his death endure
the wrath of God? Here again we need to remove a false con
ception of wrath. With God wrath is not angry passion. It is
not vindictiveness or hatred. The wrath of God is his resistance
against sin, his reaction against wrong-doing. This reaction
expresses itself in penalty. The broadest expression of God's
wrath is the death-penalty for sin. In his atoning death, there
fore, we are not to conceive of God's wrath as poured out upon
Christ's head and directed against him as a personal sinner.
Christ endured the wrath of God only in the sense that he per
mitted the sin-death principle to operate in him. Wrath was
already acting against sinful men. Christ endured it because he
entered the estate of sinful man and endured death which is
the expression of God's wrath and the penalty for their sin.
The bloody sweat and prayer for deliverance in the garden, and
the cry of the forsaken one on the cross suggest the depths of
Christ's sufferings for sinners. God of course did not really

[ 323 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

forsake Christ, but in his death there was, in some real sense,
beyond our power to fathom, a clouding of his consciousness of
God. He entered the region and shadow of death for human
sin.

4. A fourth question is, In what sense was the death of Christ
a propitiation? The word propitiation signifies a means of
rendering favorable. We have already seen that Christ's death
did not purchase God's love for us. It did not convert hate into
its opposite. But Christ's death was a means of rendering God
favorable in that God can now bestow upon the race the riches
of his grace in Christ because Christ is now one with the race.
In his death Christ became forever identified with men, and in
principle all the fulness that dwelt in Christ belongs to mankind.
" The law of the Spirit of life " in Christ is now operative
in the human race. Christ's death was a propitiation further
in that it exhausted the judgment of God against sin. He put an
end to the reign of death by his victorious death and resurrec
tion. This was an appeasing of God's wrath against sin. He
thus removed the wrath of God from men who were under the
power of the sin-death principle. Christ also broke the power of
Satan in his death and delivered those who were held in his
power. Thus his atonement was a means not of making God love
us, but of making the free exercise of his love possible and con
sistent with his own inherent antagonism to sin.

5. A fifth question is, Was or was not the death of Christ
substitutionary? The answer is that in the nature of the case it
could not have been otherwise. But here again we must put
aside merely commercial and abstract conceptions of substitution
and construe the principle in terms of divine spiritual laws and
life.

We may conveniently discuss the question of substitution by
considering first the fact and then the principle of substitution.

(i) The fact of substitution. The New Testament teaching
does not leave the matter doubtful. It is not merely a question
of the use of the Greek prepositions anti, which means " instead
of," and huper, which means " in behalf of." The former is

[324]

The Saving Work of Christ

employed in clear reference to Christ's atoning work, although
the latter is the prevailing word in such references. But huper
does not exclude the meaning " instead of," but rather includes it
as a possible element in a larger meaning. " In behalf of " does
not necessarily mean " instead of," but " instead of " does mean
also " in behalf of." The argument, however, does not turn upon
the use merely of these prepositions. The idea of substitution is
inseparable from the facts, and various passages of Scripture
declare it.

Consider the following facts: The sinless died for the sinful.
He broke the reign of the sin-death principle in his death and
resurrection. The benefits of his obedience and conquest of
death become ours by faith. In this work the Saviour can be
thought of as sustaining either of two relations to us. We might
think of him as our representative. But this is not an adequate
conception. We did not appoint him. Man did not send him.
He did not bear man's message to God, but God's message to
man. Christ indeed becomes our representative after we believe
in him, but prior to that our relation to him is one of antagonism.
He is our representative only after we approve his work and
obey his gospel.

The other possible relationship is that of substitution. What
he did for us we could not do for ourselves. We could not, as
sinful, die an atoning death for the sinful. As victims of the
sin-death principle reigning in humanity, we could not become
its conqueror. We could not break the power of death and
annul the law of sin and death. But Christ did both these things
for us. This is substitution. Various passages make it clear.
In i Corinthians 6 : 20 we read : " For ye were bought with
a price : glorify God therefore in your body." In i Corinthians
7 : 23 the same general statement is repeated. The figure of
a purchase here is of course not one which can be carried through
at all points. But it clearly means that Christ paid something
for our salvation which we could not pay. He assumed our
responsibility and discharged it in a real and vital way. Observe
again, it is not a mere matter of bookkeeping. What Christ did

[325]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

for us does not exempt us from moral obligation. It became
rather the new creative force which generates in us power to
attain the moral ideal. But he did act and he did achieve for
us at a point where we were helpless and thus acted in our stead.

In Galatians 3 : 13 we read, " Christ redeemed us from the
curse of the law, having become a curse for us." Some have
pronounced this text a remnant of Paul's Jewish legalism. But
in this they misread Paul. Beyond doubt Paul's desire here
is to clear away Jewish objections. But his whole aim is to go
behind the outward Jewish law to the new life principle, faith.
The next verse shows this: " That upon the Gentiles might come
the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus, that we might receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith." Thus the end of
Christ's work in becoming a curse for us is to create a spiritual
religion in place of a legal. Mark this point clearly. Here, as
elsewhere, when Paul sets forth the gospel in Jewish or legal
istic forms of statement or habits of thought, his aim is to show
how legalism and Judaism are abolished. Here he says in effect :
The moral consciousness of the sinner knows itself condemned,
under the curse of God. This is peculiarly true of the Jew with
his training in the Mosaic law. And it is true of him in propor
tion to his appreciation of the true moral ideal. The law of sin
and death is self-evident to the morally enlightened. The atone
ment of Christ abolishes the legalistic method in God's dealing
with men, because in it Christ acted in our stead when he abolished
the law of sin and death. He substituted the obedience-life
principle for the sin-death principle. He did this by a vital
union with men as subject to the law with them. He did it
supremely in his atoning work.

Very much the same in meaning is the declaration in 2 Corin
thians 5 : 21 : " Him who knew no sin he made to be sin
on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God
in him." Of course this does not mean that Jesus was made a
sinner, but it does mean that he acted for sinners in relation to
their sin in a manner which enabled them to escape the conse
quences of their sin.

[326]

The Saving Work of Christ

The Old Testament teaching confirms the New Testament. It
supplies the background of thought for the New Testament view.
John's word, '* Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin
of the world! " is rooted in the soil of the Old Testament. It has
been held by some that the Old Testament sacrifices do not teach
a substitution, but rather that they are a presentation of gifts to
Jehovah, or symbolize restored fellowship. In reply, it may be
said that these explanations come far short of explaining all the
meaning in those sacrifices, although they contain part of the truth.
Certain phases of these offerings make clear the ideas of sin and
guilt and atonement by substitution. The regulations regarding
the day of atonement show this clearly. (See Lev. 16 : 1-34. Cf.
Exod. 32 : 30-32.) The scapegoat suggests vividly the element
of taking away the sin of the people; and the offering of the
blood of the sacrifice in the most holy place reflects the idea of
propitiation or expiation. The idea in all these sacrifices is that
the blood is the life. Isaiah 53 : 1-12 is an Old Testament in
terpretation of sacrifice in unequivocal terms. The victim is
here a man and not an animal. But substitution is expressed in
various forms too clearly to be gainsaid. " He hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows " (ver. 4) ; " He was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities ; the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes
we are healed " (ver. 5). " Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all" (ver. 6).

(2) We consider next the principle of substitution. There
are many modern writers who fail to grasp the spiritual quality in
the substitutionary element in the death of Christ, and seek to
empty it of that element entirely. Or else they put in place of
it a conception of sympathetic suffering designed to set forth the
love of God. We do not deny sympathy of course. We only
affirm that there was more than sympathy in Christ's death. It
contains every form and phase of love.

We may illumine the principle of substitution by showing it
in its relations to personality, morality, Christian experience, and
the original connection between Christ and the race. This will

[327]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

demonstrate that substitution as applied to Christ's death is not
a mechanical artificial transaction, but an ethical living reality.

a. Substitution and personality. Consider a case of physical
substitution by way of contrast. A builder might put a block of
granite in the place of a block of wood to support the corner
of a building, because the latter proved insufficient for the burden.
This is simple physical substitution of one body for another. But
in the personal realm physical laws do not apply. Here psychic
and moral relations control. Whatever takes place is by way of
free causation. And yet the human personality has a capacity for
changing other personalities, which is well-nigh boundless. The
man who struck the revolutionary patriot, James Otis, and silenced
him, projected his malign personality into American history, and
influenced it profoundly. The murderer of Abraham Lincoln
projected his wicked will into the destiny of the nation, and
changed the course of events. A child born in an African jungle
and destined for savagery is transferred through an act of love
to a Christian environment in a Christian land, and becomes
a saint. In all these cases we are dealing not with the ordinary
power of influence, good or bad, nor with mere sympathetic rela
tions. These are forms of substitution. The personal realm is
so constituted that one personality can project itself for good
or ill into the destinies of other personalities. Now if this is true
of men generally, it is even more true of Christ, to whom we
owe our personality. He made us persons, in his own image.
We are constituted persons in him. This truth underlies all his
mediatorial work for us. It binds him to us in unique ways.
It makes possible especially all his redemptive relations to us.

b. Substitution and morality. The moral ideal attains its most
perfect expression in love for others. To be just and fair, to
speak truth, these are high forms of expression for the moral
law. But self-denying love is the highest form. Now the ques
tion of substitution is simply a question of how far love can go
in the service of others. Christianity teaches that it can take
the place of another. Take the case of the New England teacher,
Bronson Alcott, who sought to impress the value of law and

[328]

The Saving Work of Christ

discipline upon his pupils by requiring the offender to punish their
teacher. No wonder the offender was broken-hearted. The
exhibition of vicarious love, combined with stern loyalty, was a
tremendous moral dynamic. Other instances of this kind are on
record. Men deny substitution in the atonement because they
do not conceive it in high ethical terms. The highest form of
love is substitutionary love.

c. Substitution and Christian experience. Paul's words are : " I
have been crucified with Christ ; and it is no longer I that live, but
Christ liveth in me" (Gal. 2 : 20). Consider these remarkable
words. The old personality of Paul died. A new personality
has arisen. Paul was never more free, never more conscious of his
liberty as a Christian. Yet he says : " It is no longer I that live.
Another lives in me. My present personality is his personality.
What I am now is all derived from Christ. Indeed it is Christ
who lives in me." Here was the substitution of Christ's life for
Paul's old life, Christ's personality for Paul's old personality.

Now it was with such an experience that Paul viewed and in
terpreted the cross of Christ. What had taken place in Paul's
personal experience had taken place in a racial way when Christ
died. In his atoning death Jesus projected himself as a redeem
ing power into a sin-laden race. It was easy for Paul to grasp
this. His own experience of the substitution of Christ in place
of his old pharisaic consciousness made it easy for him to per
ceive the great truth that Christ's atoning work was also substitu
tionary in relation to mankind.

d. Substitution and Christ's original relation to the race. The
union of deity and humanity in Christ made possible the atoning
work. As divine he sustained a relation to God which an ordinary
man could not sustain, and as the divine man he could do for
men what another could not do. Substitution here is not simply
a transfer of moral responsibility from one man to another
man, nor was it merely a good man made a substitute for bad
men to glut a divine vengeance. This latter form of objection is
often raised. It is alleged that it makes the atonement immoral.
But it loses its force the moment we recognize Christ's relation

[329]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

to the race as Creator. If human personality can project itself
into the lives of others, and if human love can empty self to
the point of substitution for other selves, much more can the
divine-human Christ project his personality and manifest his love
thus. We must never lose sight of the fact that the person of
Christ gives its dignity and value to his atoning work.

VIII. THE GODWARD AND MANWARD REFERENCE OF THE
ATONEMENT

We come back to the old question at issue between the various
theories of the atonement, viz., whether the work of Christ on
the cross referred to God or man or both ; whether the necessity
for atonement was in God or man. In view of the preceding
discussion there can be but one answer to the question. The
necessity was in both God and man.

i. We note first the Godward reference. We were not con
tent to say with Anschn that God's honor was maintained, nor
with Grotius that God's government was secured by the atoning
work of Christ. These are external aspects of God's character.
God's honor and government are indeed preserved. But this is
because these are outward expressions of God's nature, and not
the very inner nature itself. The atonement of Christ was the
deepest expression of God's righteous love. The form it took
was due to the moral order God established in making man a
free being in his own image. What we call moral law is the ex
pression of God's nature. The law of sin and death is simply
the other side of the moral law and equally an expression of that
nature. The divine necessity in the atonement antedates, there
fore, the act itself. It arose when sin entered. Indeed, its ground
in God antedated sin. It is an eternal necessity by reason of what
God is in himself. In tracing the atonement to its source, then,
we do not stop with the divine law, or the divine government, or
the divine honor. We pass through these to something deeper,
the divine nature. That, and that most of all, is the spring and
source of atoning love. The necessity involved in the work of

[330]

The Saving Work of Christ

the Redeemer was perfect conformity to the moral ideal, and sub
jection to the operation of the sin-death principle in the sinful
race of man. This conformity and subjection were required
because the nature of man and the moral order in which he
sinned was an expression of God's own moral nature. Enter
ing that moral order to redeem men, the Redeemer must needs
conform to the laws of its constitution.

From all this then it is clear that the atonement was based
on a necessity in God. But it was also God's gift. He gave
his Son. It follows, of course, that God accepted it as sufficient
for its purpose.

An objection has been urged here to the effect that God could
not both demand and provide the atonement. This objection is
only apparent. God requires repentance from the sinner and
bestows it. He requires all moral perfection and imparts it.
Augustine expressed the essential nature of God's relations to us
in the prayer, " Give what thou commandest, and command what
thou wilt." We are made dependent on God, and we are made
free and responsible. The atonement was a fulfilment of both
these relations.

Another objection is that God's love could not be free if it
required an atonement in order to forgiveness. The objection
has already been met in what has been said. The freeness of
God's forgiving love is enhanced rather than clouded by the gift
of Christ. The same objection would hold against the incarna
tion itself. The fact is that the love of God never acted more
freely than in the incarnation and atonement. It was love break
ing down all barriers to reach men. It was " love outloving
love." It was grace which superabounded where sin abounded.

2. Consider next the manward reference of the atonement.
This reference may be summed up in the following points :

(i) The atonement produces in man an adequate repentance.
It reveals the nature of sin, its hatefulness to God and God's
judgment against it. Only through it does the sinner understand
sin. And only as he understands it can he truly repent. The
sinner sees in the cross that God freely forgives, but not without

[331]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

cost to God. That cost in suffering is as freely provided as for
giveness is freely bestowed. The cost of atonement awakens in
the sinner a just appreciation of sin. Thus only does he truly
repent. He is forgiven then because the atonement has pro
duced in him a forgivable state. All the truth in the moral
influence theory, and more, is contained in the above statement.

(2) The atonement destroys the legal consciousness of the
sinner by becoming the ground of his justification. Justification
by faith is God's method of enabling sinful men to pass from
the legal to the filial consciousness. Many have greatly mis
understood justification and discarded it as a remnant of Paul's
Judaism, a merely legalistic conception of salvation. It is ex
actly the reverse. It is Paul's way of destroying Jewish legalism.
If justification be confined in meaning to what occurs in a law-
court when a criminal is pardoned, and if faith be restricted
in meaning to a bare belief of the bare truth, then justification
by faith is Judaistic and legalistic. But this is a perversion of
the New Testament meaning of justification and of faith.

In the justification taught in the New Testament, God reckons
to us our faith in Christ for righteousness. (See Rom. 4 : 3-8;
also 4 : 22-25.) And faith according to the New Testament
results in a vital union with Christ. Thus a vital life-union is
combined with a formal declaration. The formal declaration is
that penalty is remitted, condemnation removed, a new status
bestowed. But this formal declaration is not all. A new life-
union is established. The justification of the New Testament
is lifted clear above all mere legalism by the qualifying phrase,
" by faith." The faith principle in justification thus changes the
formal and legal side into something vital. At the same time the
formal declaration or reckoning of faith for righteousness clears
the sinner's mind forever of all doubt as to his standing with God.
Until that declaration is made in that justifying act of God in
his behalf, he can only have a legal consciousness. The man
who knows the meaning of sin and has a sense of guilt and
condemnation, can never rise above the wavering doubt, the
hesitation, and unrest of spiritual struggle, without a justifying

[332]

The Saving Work of Christ

act on God's part. He can never rise to the unclouded filial con
fidence and love until the problem of sin and condemnation is out
of the way.

We conclude, then, that the New Testament doctrine of justi
fication by faith based on the atoning work of Christ promotes
moral and spiritual interests in two ways : First, it joins the soul
to Christ in a living union which is potential of all moral at
tainment; and secondly, it provides for the needs of the sin- and
guilt-consciousness of men and enables them thus to rise to the
filial consciousness of true sons of God. Of course the doctrine
of justification may be abused like all other good things. But
if we can avoid abstractions about it and keep close to the New
Testament modes of viewing it, the abuses will pass away.

It may be objected that the sin- and guilt-consciousness is
merely subjective. Man imagines God's wrath which does not
exist. He is haunted by the idea of condemnation and penalty
when these are mere fictions of his imagination. This objection
is common to most theories which seek to weaken the element
of cost in the atonement. There are several lines of reply. One
is that to explain away the sin- and guilt-consciousness is' highly
perilous to ethics. Our conscience is central in our moral nature.
The sense of guilt is inherent in the sinful consciousness. Penalty
goes with guilt both in our thought and in fact. The validity and
truth of the guilt-consciousness are established by the fact of
penalty in experience. We cannot eliminate suffering, especially
death as the consequence of sin, from our experience. Bushnell
and Harnack have recognized the fact of our guilt-consciousness
and the need of atonement with its " altar forms "of substitution
and propitiation while denying the objective need of these forms.
But we may well conclude that if the need of the soul is so
clearly defined in its consciousness of sin and guilt, the answer
to the need must correspond in its foundation in fact.

Besides the above we add that the sin- and guilt-consciousness
has as its correlative all the higher moral values. These values
are high as their opposites are low. Virtue is exalted in the
degree to which vice is degraded and degrading. The filial con-

[ 333 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

sciousness of God's sons is noble in a manner answering to the
degree in which the opposite of that consciousness is ignoble.
If we are to keep ethics pure and high, therefore, we must avoid
weakening the sense of sin and explaining away the sense of guilt.
(3) The atonement is a powerful dynamic in human experi
ence. As such it produces various kinds of moral and spiritual
results. We can only mention a few.

a. One of these is psychic. The atonement of Christ creates
in the saved man an assurance of his standing with God. The
reconciliation which Christ effected on the cross, regarded as
the ground of the sinner's acceptance with God, imparts to his
life the power of an abiding conviction. Christians of course
sometimes doubt. But they need not doubt. Moreover, the
atoning work of Christ awakens in the believer the deepest
springs of gratitude. It also humbles his pride since it awakens
in him a sense of boundless obligation to Christ. The deepest
springs of loyalty, love, and devotion are thus unstopped. This
dynamic quality of the atonement is shown in the experience
of Christians in many forms. Paul's own deathless devotion,
his sublime loyalty, his sufferings and toils, were born of his
deep sense of gratitude to the Son of God who, as he declares,
" loved me and gave himself for me."

The same experience is reflected in the hymns of the Chris
tian centuries. A deep sense of indebtedness to Christ runs
through most of them. He is the soul's refuge from sin and
temptation, its strength in sorrow, its hope for the future. These
hymns have been criticized as lacking the " social note." The
criticism may be partially just. The gospel properly understood
is intensely social. But no efforts for social improvement can
ever hope to succeed on a large scale if they lack the dynamic
reenforcement of the gospel. Nothing could better promote so
cial effort than a return to Christ's atonement and an inter
pretation of it in its social relations.

b. The atonement is a powerful dynamic in the moral and
spiritual life of believers. The mystical union of the Christian
with Christ is, as we have seen, the reproduction of the cross-

[334]

The Saving Work of Christ

principle in the spiritual life. The Christian life is summed up
in the phrase " Christ in you the hope of glory."

It is here we see the answer to an old objection: " How can
you explain the morality of punishing an innocent man that sin
ners may go free? Both acts are ethically indefensible." The
objection is based on a false analogy and does not state the
whole case. Christ is not simply " an innocent man." He is
the Creator of the human race. When in atonement he assumes
its responsibility, it is a part of the original responsibility in
volved in his creative act. Again, it is not simply a case of letting
" criminals go free." Those who are set free through Christ are
no longer criminals. He changes them into saints of God. He
sustains a causal relation to their moral and spiritual life. He
recreates them morally. In a word, Christ's historic act on the
cross is also the beginning of a vital spiritual process in human
hearts. The two things are indissolubly bound together.

A QUESTION AS TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IN THE ATONEMENT

We ask: What attribute or quality in God controls in the
atonement? Is it righteousness, or is it love, or is it merely the
divine sovereignty, which conditions the saving work of Christ?
The reply is that it is no one of these alone, but all in com
bination. The atonement was not the mere appointment of the
divine sovereignty, as some have claimed, without reference to
other qualities in God. Nor was it a provision of his righteous
ness to which love was subordinate, nor of his love to which
righteousness was secondary. The atonement was not the prod
uct of any mere attribute of God. It was the expression rather
of the inner being of the righteous and loving God who was
sovereign. God drew the world back to himself by a cord which
was made up of two strands, righteousness and love. The atone
ment then was not a mere utilitarian expedient for accomplishing
an end which might have been otherwise achieved. It was rather
a divine enterprise in which the requirements of righteousness and
of love were met at every stage. Here as elsewhere we must think

f 335 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of God as a unitary Being, and not permit the thought of separate
attributes to mislead us.

THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT

The atonement of Christ was for all men. His relation to man
kind which has been set forth involves the consequence that he
died for all. There are numerous passages of Scripture which
leave no room for doubt. In John 3 : 16 it is declared that
" God so loved the world " that he gave his Son ; in Hebrews
2:9," that by the grace of God he should taste of death for
every man " ; in 2 Peter 2 : I it is declared in regard to false
teachers, doomed to destruction, that they denied " even the
Master that bought them." In i John 2 : 2 we read, " he is
the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for
the whole world." In I Timothy 2 : 6 again we find the same
statement in this form, " Who gave himself a ransom for all."
In Titus 2 : 1 1 we read, " For the grace of God hath appeared
bringing salvation to all men." In i Timothy 4 : 10 a distinction
is made between the race as a whole and those who believe.
God is " the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe."

This last passage makes clear the fact that all men do not
share equally in the benefits of the atonement of Christ. Those
who remain in unbelief are not saved. Yet even they share
many of the common blessings of life through the work of Christ.
God's anger against human sin is restrained in order that men
may repent. Every motive and appeal is provided in the gospel
to induce them to do so.

THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST

The New Testament teaches that Christ intercedes for us now
in the presence of the Father. We do not think of this as spoken
prayer. It is rather his continued activity carrying out his aton
ing work and making it efficacious for men. " He ever liveth
to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7 : 25). "If any man

[336]

The Saving Work of Christ

sin, we have an advocate with the Father" (i John 2:1).
" It is Christ Jesus that died . . . who also maketh intercession
for us" (Rom. 8 : 34). Christ intercedes for transgressors
(Isa. 53 : 12; Luke 23 : 34), and of course he intercedes for
his people. The above passages make clear the latter point.
There are many others. (Eph. i : 6; Acts 2 : 33; Matt. 18 : 19,
20; Heb. 2 : 17, 18.)

The Holy Spirit intercedes for us in our hearts. He teaches
us to pray. He makes intercession for us with unutterable
groanings. (Rom. 8 : 26, 27.) The intercession of Christ in
heaven and that of the Spirit on earth are in perfect harmony.
Here as elsewhere the Holy Spirit takes the things of Christ
and shows them unto us.

w [ 337 ]

CHAPTER XIV
ELECTION: GOD'S INITIATIVE IN SALVATION

I. GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY

3N a previous section (The Providence of God) we have
briefly referred to the sovereignty of God. A number of
closely related topics were there also discussed. It is neces
sary at this point to consider God's sovereignty in its relation to
human salvation. This relation is usually expressed by the terms
predestination or election. As will appear in due time, however,
the question of election and predestination turns upon the ques
tion whether God or man takes the initiative in salvation. In
this question are bound up all other issues involved in the gen
eral problem. Hence we have adopted as the principle to be ex
pounded here God's initiative in the salvation of men. As in
creation, so also in redemption, the fundamental truth is ex
pressed in the language of Genesis I : i, "In the beginning
God." The motive, the method, and the end of human salva
tion all arose out of the nature of the infinitely holy God. The
initiative was with God, not with man. This in brief is the
ultimate meaning of the divine sovereignty as it relates to our
salvation. All systems of theology in the end are bound to recog
nize it as a fundamental truth, despite the fact that many systems
have failed to apply it consistently.

I. In approaching the subject we should avoid certain errors
in the manner of conceiving God's sovereignty. Chief among
these has been the habit of making the sovereignty of God
depend upon his " mere will " or " good pleasure." It is the
same kind of error which we discussed in connection with
the atonement. Many of the same general cautions are neces
sary here. The danger is the fallacy of the abstract method.
We are in danger of taking a single aspect, or attribute, or

[338]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

quality in the divine nature instead of the divine nature as a
whole. We may in our thoughts take God's will apart from his
righteousness and apart from his love, and combine it with his
infinite power. In so doing we are in danger of conceiving
God as an arbitrary despot instead of a being who loves and
seeks the good of all. In a word, we must avoid the abstract
method and think of God as he is revealed in the Scriptures, and
especially as he is supremely revealed in Christ. God is more
than will. He is an infinite Person, rich in all moral attributes.
He is the eternal Father, as Christ is the eternal Son. We must
never, therefore, exalt the mere will of God, apart from his char
acter as so revealed, in our efforts to define his sovereignty.

2. Some forms of the older Calvinism will serve a*s examples
of the danger we are considering. There were two forms
of it which may be mentioned. Both arose as the result of
applying' the rigid forms of logic to the idea of God's sover
eignty as inhering in his will alone. One form asserted that
God foreordained some men to eternal life for the exhibition
of his love, and others to eternal death for the exhibition of his
justice, and that he created men with these ends in view. It
followed from this that the atonement of Christ was made not for
the whole world, but for the elect alone. The other was a
somewhat modified form of this view. It held that the purpose
to create preceded the purpose to save. But along with this
it was held that some were chosen for eternal salvation and others
were chosen in the same way for eternal reprobation or damna
tion. The limited atonement was also an essential element in
this view.

3. In these views we have a striking example of the abstract
method. They were due to the fact that their authors con
ceived of God's " mere will " apart from his character, and with
this false premise they proceeded by a rigid logic to their false
conclusions. Undoubtedly these views contain one truth, which
is that the salvation of individual men is to be traced to the
initiative of God. He took the first steps and continued his
gracious action until men believed and were saved. But it is

[339]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

not true that God created men expressly in order that he might
damn them, for he willeth that none should perish, but that all
should live. It is not true that Christ's atonement was limited.
It was a universal atonement, as we have already seen. It is
not true that God acted in saving and condemning men in an
arbitrary manner after the fashion of a human despot. He was
and is the personal eternal and holy Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. All his dealings with mankind are consistent with this
supreme fact. That it is so consistent was the chief burden
of his revelation of himself to us in Christ.

In order that we may understand God's sovereignty in saving
men, it is necessary that we trace briefly the biblical doctrine of
his eternal purpose toward mankind. It is only in the light of
this larger purpose that we can understand his method in saving
individuals.

II. GOD'S PURPOSE TOWARD MANKIND

If we abandon the abstract way of thinking of God's sover
eignty and define it according to the teaching of Scripture, we
find ourselves at once in a different atmosphere. Sovereignty at
once becomes transformed into a glorious manifestation of God's
love for the race of man. There are four statements which may
be made to set forth this truth.

I. The first is that from the beginning God's gracious purpose
has been not national, but racial. He has had in view not one
family or nation, but the whole of mankind. There were chosen
families and a chosen nation. But these were not only ends in
themselves, they were also means toward a larger end. At one
crisis in the world's history Noah and his family were chosen
as the channel of God's blessing to mankind. Later God chose
Abraham, whose descendants became the nation of Israel. God's
promise to Abraham was the disclosure of his purpose toward
mankind : " I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing; and I
will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will
I curse : and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed "

[ 340 ]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

(Gen. 12 : 2, 3). This promise was repeated to Abraham many
times in substantially the same form. We do not rightly under
stand the calling of Abraham unless we see in him the manifesta
tion of God's world-wide purpose of grace.

2. The second statement is that the course of Old Testament
history clearly shows that the unvarying and consistent purpose
of God was the bestowal of his favor upon the world at large
through Israel. Israel became a nation, an elect and holy people.
In the end it was destroyed because of pride and self-righteous
ness and spiritual blindness. God had made her an exclusive
people for a world-wide end. She became pharisaical in spirit.
But the spiritual treasure she bore was not lost to mankind.
We need only to read the messages of the prophets in all the
great crises of the nation to understand God's all-inclusive plan
which he was working out through Israel. Isaiah recalls to Israel
the message of Jehovah, " I will also give thee for a light to
the Gentiles, that' thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of
the earth " (Isa. 49 : 6). Again he says: " For behold, darkness
shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the peoples ; but Jehovah
will arise upon thee, and his glory shall be upon thee. And na
tions shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy
rising" (Isa. 60 : 2, 3). These passages represent a great class
of prophetic utterances. When the nation was broken up by the
captivity the prophets came with their enlarged conceptions of
God as the key to the meaning of the great tragedy.

3. The third statement is that the incarnation and atonement
of Christ imply and involve the same world-wide purpose of
God's grace. Christ was the " Son of man," and not merely
a Jew of the first century. His incarnation made him organic,
with mankind. As we have already seen, his atonement was for
all. The Great Commission expressly includes " all nations "
and "every creature" in the destination of the gospel. (Matt.
28 : 19, 20; Mark 16 : 15, 16.)

4. The fourth statement is that the New Testament history
and teaching generally confirms the above interpretation of the
incarnation and atonement. The book of Acts records the spread

[ 341 j

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the gospel among the Gentiles. The choice of the apostle Paul
and his mission especially signalize the universality of the gospel.
His doctrine of justification by faith was squarely against the
Jewish narrowness which would have required converts to be
come Jews in principle and practice. In Ephesians Paul declares
that the universality of the gospel was the secret of the ages now
made known through Christ. (See Eph. 2 and 3, especially 3 :
4-13.) The book of Revelation in many places gives us visions
of great multitudes from every nation and kindred and tribe and
tongue redeemed unto God through the blood of Jesus Christ.

From the foregoing we draw the following conclusions : First,
the details of God's sovereign plan for men can best be under
stood in the light of his larger plan for the race. His method
of saving individual men can best be understood only in its con
text of the larger plan and purpose. Secondly, all that may at
first sight seem arbitrary or capricious in God's dealing with
men ceases to be so when viewed in the light of his gracious pur
pose toward mankind. Thirdly, when there are delays in the
execution of his gracious purpose it is not due to indifference on
his part to human welfare. It arises rather out of the needs of
the situation. The New Testament writers, especially Paul, speak
of the " fulness of times " as a principle in the unfolding of God's
plan. Delay may be essential to the final end in view. A fourth
conclusion is that God has never lost interest in the Gentile na
tions. He has never relinquished his claims upon them. He
has ever planned great and gracious things for them. A fifth
conclusion is that while logic is good in itself, it may easily go
astray if it starts with a false premise, such as the mere " will "
of God conceived of apart from his revealed purpose toward
all nations, his good-will toward all mankind. This truth must
never be overlooked.

III. THE SALVATION OF INDIVIDUALS

We can best discuss the sovereignty of God in the salvation of
individuals by asking and answering a series of questions. The

[342]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

first question will deal with the crucial point of difference be
tween opposing theories of election.

i. Does God choose men to salvation because of their good works
or because he foresees they will believe when the gospel is preached
to them ? Beyond doubt God foresees their faith. Beyond doubt
faith is a condition of salvation. The question is whether it is
also the ground of salvation. The Scriptures answer this ques
tion in the negative. The gospel is efficacious with some and not
efficacious with others because God's grace is operative in the
one case beyond the degree of its action in the other. There
are many passages which teach this. We cite a few. Jesus says
to the disciples : " Ye did not choose me, but I chose you and
appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your
fruit should abide; that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father
in my name, he will give it you " (John 15 : 16). Observe here
that the disciples were chosen not as an end in itself merely, but
as a means to fruit-bearing, and that this latter end was to be
achieved through prayer. The election included in its scope the
good works which were to follow the faith. It included also the
power in prayer which was to be the expression of the faith.
Salvation is rich in contents. It is not a bare deliverance from
sin. The faith which is the condition of justification is also the
germ of a fruitful life.

Again, Jesus says : " All that which the Father giveth me shall
come unto me ; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast
out" (John 6 : 37). Again he says: " No man can come to me
except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him
up in the last day " (John 6 : 44). In connection with the preach
ing of Paul and Barnabas we read, " As many as were ordained
to eternal life believed" (Acts 13 : 48). In Romans 8 : 29, 30
Paul joins together God's foreknowledge, his foreordination, his
calling, his justification, and his final glorification of the saints in
a bond of spiritual unity and traces all back to the eternal pur
pose of God. And in Romans 9 : 11-13 tne apostle refers to
the fact that prior to their birth, before Esau or Jacob could
know good and evil, and in order that " the purpose of God

[343]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

according to the election might stand," he chose Jacob. In Ephe-
sians i : 4 he declares that God chose us in Christ before the
foundation of the world.

In close connection with the above truth is the further truth
that faith, repentance, and good works are all the gift of God.
In Romans 12 : 3 we read as to faith, " according as God hath
dealt to each man a measure of faith." Again, in Ephesians 2 :
8, 9 : " For by grace have ye been saved through faith ; and
that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God ; not of works, that
no man should glory."

As to repentance the same type of teaching appears. In Acts
5 : 31 we read, " Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a
Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel and remis
sion of sins." In Acts n : 18 also, " Then to the Gentiles also
hath God granted repentance unto life."

The good works of Christians are also attributed to God. In
Philippians 2 : 12, 13 we read: " Work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you
both to will and to work for his good pleasure." And again, in
Ephesians 2 : 10, " For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we
should walk in them."

It would be easy to multiply passages showing how the calling
of sinners effectually to repentance, their regeneration and con
version, are all attributed to God's initiative and grace. (See Acts
18 : 9, 10; John i : 13; I John 4 : 10; i Cor. r : 24-29; n : 29;
Gal. i : 15, 16.)

2. The second question concerns the human will and choice:
Does God's election coerce man's will, or does it leave it free?
The answer is emphatically that the will of man is not coerced, but
is left free. In his free act of accepting Christ and his salvation
man is self-determined. He would not have made the choice if
left to himself without the aid of God's grace. But when he
chooses, it is his own free act. God's grace is not " irresistible "
as a physical force is irresistible. Grace does not act as a physical
force. It is a moral and spiritual and personal power.

[344]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

Here we confront a great fundamental truth, vis., the moral,
spiritual, and personal method of divine grace in saving men.
This truth contains several other subordinate truths, as follows :

(i) God's appeal to men through the gospel is addressed to the
faculties and powers in man which distinguish him as a moral,
spiritual, and personal being. Man has intelligence. The gospel
appeal is addressed to the intelligence. As Paul expressed it,
" Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men "
(2 Cor. 5 : n). The gospel is a gospel of argument and per
suasion. Again, man has conscience. The gospel is an intensely
moral appeal directed to the deepest moral consciousness of man.
Paul adds to the preceding statement: " but we are made manifest
unto God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your
consciences" (2 Cor. 5 : n). The gospel is thus a moral
tonic. Again, man has emotions. The gospel appeals to all proper
human emotions. Hope is a large element in it. " For in hope
were we saved" (Rom. 8 : 24). Love is aroused to its depths
by the gospel message. Nothing else avails if love is wanting,
(i Cor. 13.) The gospel produces godly sorrow: "For godly
sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a repentance which
bringeth no regret" (2 Cor. 7 : 10). And so on through the
list of human emotions. The gospel purifies and stimulates all
human emotions. Again, man has will. The gospel appeal is
addressed to the will. The disobedient will alone prevents the
salvation of men. Jesus said to the Jews, " And ye will not come
to me that ye may have life" (John 5 : 40). In his words to
Jerusalem he said, " How often would I have gathered thy chil
dren together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her
wings, and ye would not" (Matt. 23 : 37). Thus the gospel
arouses the will. We repeat then that the gospel of God's grace
acts as a moral and spiritual and personal force, and not as a
physical force. Men have been ever prone to think of electing
grace as if it were dynamite or some other kind of material force
compelling men instead of a moral force persuading them. Grace
does not become effective until men freely respond to it. The
preacher's appeal may be to hope or fear. He may cover the

f345]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

entire range of human emotions. He may appeal to the reason, the
will, the conscience, the imagination. But whatever be his form
of appeal, his message aims at a free response of man's will.
God's grace acting through and along with God's message aims
at the same result. It appears supremely as grace when it pro
duces this free response in man.

(2) A second truth contained in the general truth that God's
method is moral and spiritual and personal is this : To reach men
through the divinely given powers and faculties, God employs a
system of means. Among these the most prominent are the church
and its ordinances, the lives of Christians, the ministry, the Bible.
In a word, the means and apparatus of the gospel conform to
God's .moral and spiritual and personal method. It is not a
priesthood with exclusive rights to approach God, but a universal
priesthood. It is not a church which saves, but a church which
is the spiritual home of the saved. It is not sacraments possessing
magical power, but ordinances which symbolize the truth for
the discerning disciple. It is not human custodians of the grace
of God bestowing it upon those who become obedient to the
church, but preachers proclaiming a salvation for all who will
believe. In all respects the means are thus moral and spiritual.
The electing grace of God acts through such means and achieves
the salvation of men.

(3) A third truth is that the Holy Spirit acts in conformity
with God's moral and spiritual and personal method. The work
of the Holy Spirit is to teach, to guide, to lead, to take the things
of Christ and show them to disciples. (John 16 : 7fT.) The
work of the Holy Spirit is summed up as moral demonstration
of the truth of the gospel. This appears in John 16 : 8-u, where
his work is described as conviction of sin, of righteousness, and
of judgment. It is not proof to the intellect merely. It is not a
stirring of the emotions merely. It is not sheer power exerted
upon the will of man. It is rather a work which contains all
these elements in a conviction or moral conquest in the soul.
Paul employs a like form of statement where he declares that
his preaching was in " demonstration of the Spirit and of

[346]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

power" (i Cor. 2:4). God's moral and spiritual and personal
method in the gospel thus includes a moral demonstration within
the soul by the Holy Spirit of God.

Let us now restate the doctrine of election in the light of these
truths. Election is not to be thought of as a bare choice of so
many human units by God's action independently of man's free
choice and the human means employed. God elects men to
respond freely. He elects men to preach persuasively and to
witness convincingly. He elects to reach men through their na
tive faculties and through the church, through evangelism and
education and missionary endeavor. We must include all these
elements in election. Otherwise we split the decree of God into
parts and leave out an essential part. The doctrine may be pre
sented as a mere fragment, which leads to many errors.

We may illustrate our answer to the question as to man's free
dom at the head of this section as follows: When God saves A.
he wills two things, vis., that A. shall be an agent or medium for
conveying those blessings to B. In like manner he wills that B.
shall be a means of blessing to C., and so on through the entire
list. Now God's grace saves A., not by a bare forgiveness and
justification. God's grace in saving A. means the love, the
sympathy, the prayers, the efforts, and strivings of A. to save B,
Grace does not fully work itself out in saving A. unless A. per
mits grace to awaken in him a desire, yearning, prayer, effort
for B. This desire, yearning, prayer, effort is an essential part
of the salvation of A. God's purpose in A. comes short unless
grace reappears in A. as tender love for the lost, for B. The sal
vation God brings to men is a far richer gift than men some
times imagine. It is not the mere plucking of a human unit here
and there as a brand from the burning. It is this, but far more.
It is a salvation which works through human agents and agencies
and which involves a great series of human relationships and
influences.

3. A third question about God's sovereignty is this: Can we
reconcile the sovereignty of God and human freedom in his elect
ing grace ? The answer is in the negative. We are dealing here with

[347]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

ultimate forms of experience and of thought. God's sovereignty
held in an abstract way and apart from our freedom, or man's
freedom held in an abstract way apart from God's sovereignty,
is a very hurtful and dangerous teaching. We are conscious of
freedom as an ultimate fact of experience. We are driven to
God's sovereignty as an ultimate necessity of thought. One has
expressed it thus : " I am fated ; that is false. I am free : that is
false. I am fated and free : that is true." The word " fate " is
not proper to express any relation to God. But apart from
this the above statement suggests the great truth with which
we are dealing.

4. A fourth question is : Can we assign any reasons why God
should adopt the method of election in saving men? The reply
is that we certainly cannot fully understand. But there are
some reasons which will shed light upon the matter. We need
to remember, first of all, that God is limited in his methods by
the moral ends of his kingdom. His limitations are of course
self-imposed. But they govern him when once adopted. God
is limited in two ways in his dealings with men. First, he is
limited by human freedom. He made us free. He will not
coerce man in his choices. If he did so he would destroy our
freedom. We would cease to be persons and become things.
God's problem is to save men and at the same time to leave them
free. This is the greatest and most difficult of all problems. It
is this problem which explains the system of moral, spiritual, and
personal agencies we have been considering. God cannot take
the soul by sheer omnipotence. He cannot storm the will and
take it by assault, overpowering and crushing it. This would
not save it, but lay it waste. Human agents of redemption, per
suasion, argument, entreaty, prayer, personal influence — in a word,
moral and spiritual forces are the only kind available for the end
in view. God is limited by man's freedom.

Again, God is limited in his method by human sin. Sin en
slaves men. They are endowed with moral freedom, but their
wills have a bias which inevitably leads to the rejection of the
gospel except when aided by God's grace in Christ. It is not a

1 348 1

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

question merely of ability, but of inevitability. Man inevitably
chooses evil. The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be.

Now combine these two thoughts. If man is free, and if he will
inevitably reject the gospel unaided by divine grace, what will
be the outcome? No one would be saved. But if God interposes,
it can only be some form of election. But in adopting the method
of election he must work in a moral, spiritual, and personal way
on man, the moral, spiritual, and personal being. He must
reduce his own action to the minimum lest he compel the will.
He must interpose sufficiently to secure the result because the
moral and spiritual process is gradual. Character comes by de
grees. Regeneration is instantaneous. But the new birth is the
beginning only of the new character in Christ. Preaching, per
suasion, in short, all the moral and spiritual agencies, require time.
If salvation were achieved as a complete whole in a twinkling,
if character could arise at one stroke, the case might be dif
ferent. We conclude, then, that God is limited by human free
dom and sin to the method of election, and that in executing his
purpose he must, by reason of these limitations, work gradually
and through human agents.

5. A fifth question is : Would it not be fairer and more just if
God left men to accept or reject when the gospel is preached to
them, without any previous choice on his part? The reply is
that if the final outcome is the salvation of some and the
loss of others, any other system would be ultimately traceable
to God's sovereignty and election. Assume that equal grace is
given to all. Some are receptive, and some hostile to it. The
receptive are saved, the hostile lost. Then God's sovereignty
and election operated to provide efficaciously for the receptive
only. He did not give grace to overcome hostility. He elected
thus the receptive and only the receptive. Assume again that
with equal grace to all, some respond and believe because they
are better morally, or less stubborn in will, or more believing, or
for any other conceivable reason. Clearly if these are saved and
the others lost, it is because God elected to offer a gospel

[349]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

adapted to reach one class and not adapted to reach the other
class. As we remarked at the outset, the fundamental truth is
that of Genesis i : i, "In the beginning God." If it be as
sumed that God could save all, but refuses to do so, then any
scheme whatever carries with it the idea of an election based on
God's sovereignty. Our own view, as we have just stated it,
holds that under the moral and spiritual conditions involved in
man's sin and freedom, God could not save all. God's choice be
comes effective through special grace based not at all on human
merit, and on no principle of partiality or arbitrary selection. He
chooses rather on a principle which makes possible a rapid move
ment toward his all-embracing purpose for the human race. No
instance of individual election can be fully understood when
viewed out of relation to the universal plan and purpose. The
next question brings out this point more fully.

6. A sixth question : Is God seeking to save as few or as many
as possible? Men have sometimes conceived of election as if it
were a plan to save as few as possible. The whole tenor of the
Bible is in the other direction. Here we must speak with
caution. But there are many indications that God is seeking
to save men as rapidly as the situation admits — in view of sin
and freedom and the necessity for respecting human freedom.
The hostility of the world to Christ and the persecutions of Chris
tians during the first centuries of the Christian era show clearly
that an earlier giving of the gospel in its fulness might have been
disastrous. In a moral kingdom men must be prepared before
great epoch-making advances are possible. First the blade, then
the ear, then the full corn in the ear, is the process. The fol
lowing points will serve to make clear the purpose of God to
save not as few, but as many as possible :

( i ) The purpose expressed in the call of Abraham. We have
clearly seen that God's purpose in that call was twofold, the
blessing of Abraham and his seed and through them the bless
ing of all mankind. This wider purpose never disappears from
the Old Testament history. It becomes most explicit in the
later history after the exile in the teaching of the prophets.

[350]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

(2) The land given to Abraham and his descendants sug
gests the same truth. Palestine was at the center of the known
world on the central sea, the Mediterranean. It was the highway
of the nations going eastward from the west, or westward from
the east. The Jewish theocracy was like a grain of musk de
posited in the very heart of mankind to prepare the whole lump
in due time. The Jewish dispersion in all directions was the
preparation for the spread of the gospel. The synagogue was
usually the nucleus and center of evangelization. Converted Jews
bridged the chasm across to the Gentile world.

(3) The unity of the world under the Roman Empire when
Christ was born and the facilities for travel to every part of it
were parts of divine preparation for the apostle and the mis
sionary with the good tidings of salvation. Thus the good will
of God for all the race begins to be manifest in a most striking
way.

(4) The spread of the Greek language and culture as a medium
for communicating the truth of the gospel is another mark of
the universal plan of God. One has expressed it thus : " As the
river Nile at a certain season overflows its banks and floods a
wide area, leaving its deposit of rich soil for the Egyptian farmer,
and then subsides again into its narrow channel, so also in God's
providence Greece overflowed the national limits and left its
deposit of language and literature and then subsided into its
narrow channels." This universal language became the instru
ment for the spread of the gospel over the earth.

(5) The career of the apostle Paul was a notable factor in this
great series of secondary causes. This is seen in his message
and in his travels. His message was Christianity stated in uni
versal terms and maintained with all vigor against Jewish nar
rowness and the tendency to make it a mere Jewish sect. His
doctrine of justification by faith apart from works of the law
proclaimed it as a Gentile as well as a Jewish religion. Paul's
travels took him westward, not to the dreamy and inactive people
of the East. He planted the gospel in Europe among the aggres
sive, ambitious, individualistic, inventive races, who in due time

1 351 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

were to recover the early faith from a vast ecclesiasticism and
again make it a conquering missionary religion. In our own day
we witness a new " fulness of time," in the world preparation for
the gospel and a new outburst of missionary life and power. The
great war in progress at this writing will no doubt change the
face of civilization in many ways. It will prepare for new
fulfilments of God's purpose in Christ.

Now this historical survey suggests in a very impressive way
that God's electing grace has never been a narrowing, but al
ways a widening principle. He has been ever eager to prepare
men for larger blessings than they could receive at the time. His
purpose and plan have ripened as rapidly as the moral and
spiritual and personal kingdom and its appropriate forces could
bring it to pass. His love has ever sought to overleap the barriers
which human sin and unbelief have interposed.

7. A seventh question : Can we discover any principle which has
guided in the electing love of God ? In reply two or three things
are perfectly clear. First, men are not chosen because of merit
of any kind on their part. This is the constantly recurring note
in all Paul's epistles. Salvation is not of works, lest any man
should boast. Whatever be the reason for the salvation of men,
it is not due to any merit or moral worth in them. Secondly,
it is also clear that men are chosen for service in God's kingdom.
The Bible nowhere regards men as detached atoms unrelated
to other men. This choice for service applied to Abraham as we
have seen. It applied to Israel as a nation. The later prophets
interpreted Israel's mission as a mission to mankind. Isaiah espe
cially insisted that the " remnant " of Israel was the prophet of
God to teach the nations. The apostle Paul conceived of him
self as chosen from birth for his apostleship and mission to the
Gentiles. Jesus expressly told the disciples that he had chosen
them, that they might be his witnesses. They were to await the
enduement of power after his departure that they might carry
forward his work. In the third place, we may infer that God's
election pursues the course which will yield the largest results in
the shortest time. Men may be so placed in relations to other

[352]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

men that their election could easily become an avenue of approach
to others, and these in turn to others. There might thus arise
a principle of electing strategic men, through whom God's widen
ing purpose might swiftly realize itself. This would not imply
merit on the part of those chosen. In some cases, indeed, the
strategic man might be among the worst of men morally, and yet
so related to others, or so endowed, that he could be employed
best for the ends of the kingdom. Paul declared himself to have
been the chief of sinners. But for this very reason God's grace
obtained a monumental victory through him so that other bad
men might hope. In bowling the aim of the bowler is to hit the
" king " pin so that it will knock down the other nine. It is not
that the " king " pin is in any essential way different from the
others in itself, but rather that it is so related to the other pins
that to hit it right means the largest results. It occupies a
strategic position in relation to the other pins. We may assume,
therefore, in the light of God's universal purpose for the race of
man, that he has ever pursued this plan.

In view of all the preceding it appears that God's sovereignty
in his electing love in no way brings reproach upon the love and
grace of God. It is rather a masterpiece of love and grace
seeking to bless men. We can never fully fathom the depths of
the divine motives in his dealings with men. We can never
grasp entirely the significance of all his methods. Especially
is this true regarding the doctrine of election. But it is not dif
ficult to see that there is nothing arbitrary in God's ways. In
finite love is behind all his acts as well as infinite righteousness.

IV. OBJECTIONS

Most of the objections to the doctrine of election have already
been answered indirectly in the preceding discussion. There are
a few, however, which need specific treatment.

i. It is objected that the teaching makes God partial. Why
should he save some and refuse to save others. The answer is
contained chiefly in what has already been expressed. Election

X [ 353 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

is his method for realizing a great purpose for all. It is the
only method possible under all the circumstances. But we add
that election is a universal principle in God's methods. He
chooses some plants and flowers to be more beautiful than
others. He chooses some birds to be singers while others can
only croak. He chooses to endow some men as poets and artists
while others are commonplace plodders. The black races in
Africa might complain of the partiality of God for the white
races of Europe and America. God chose Israel as his peculiar
people out of all the races of men. The modern doctrine of
natural selection as applied in biology generally is a scientific
expression of the same general principle. It is evident that God's
ends in the world could not be achieved by means of a dead
level of privilege. Life in all its forms, physical, moral, and
spiritual, involves differences of various kinds, and these dif
ferences imply ultimately a principle of election.

2. It is also objected that election involves insincerity in the
offer of salvation to all. The reply is that there is absolutely no
barrier to the salvation of any, save their own wills. Christ
died for all. God is willing to receive all who will come. God
knows that some will not accept. Indeed, he knows that all
will refuse unless by his special grace some are led to believe.
But invitation and persuasion and appeal and man's free response
are the only means available in a moral and spiritual order.
Grace can only operate thus. If angels were sent to capture the
elect and bring them in by force, this would not be a method
in harmony with grace. It would leave the will unmoved and
character unchanged. The choicest element in man's spiritual
life in God's sight is his own free act in choosing God and re
turning to him. The gospel invitation makes this choice pos
sible. No other method is conceivable by which it could be so
well done.

3. Again, it is objected that God does not desire the salva
tion of all, or else he would elect all. But the Scriptures expressly
declare that " God so loved the world " that he sent his Son, and
also that he wishes none to perish, but that all should come to

[354]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

repentance. (2 Peter 3:9.) The objection assumes falsely that
there are no moral limitations of any kind in God, and that he
can do anything he desires. But human freedom limits God, as
does human unbelief and sin. Men cannot be made righteous
by sheer omnipotence. God cannot force or compel any one to be
good. The situation does not admit of the use of force. It is
a situation rather in which a race of men is bent on self-destruc
tion, or moral and spiritual suicide. God interposes by a method
which respects their freedom and gradually works out a universal
purpose of blessing.

4. It is objected also that election cuts the nerve of Christian
endeavor. It is felt that if the number of the saved is fixed be
forehand, there is little need on our part to strive for their sal
vation. But this forgets the meaning of salvation. Our sal
vation means in part our love and effort for the lost. It
means our sharing the redemptive passion of Christ. It means
all the forms of self-sacrifice and of moral worth which are
required to save others. The objection also forgets that the
kingdom of God is a kingdom of human relations. God is per
fecting us through our interactions in a moral and spiritual realm.
It forgets also that the kingdom is a historical movement in which
all the parts are closely related and interdependent.

The objection forgets the alternative of God's election. Our
effort would be hopeless indeed without it. We would soon
cease all effort because all effort would appear to be fruitless.
There is no greater incentive to effort than the consciousness
of a divine purpose working in us. All great reformers and
evangelists have had the conviction. Revolutions were success
ful in such large measure because a sense of God's purpose was
the impelling motive behind them.

5. It is also objected that an insoluble mystery confronts us
when we seek to unite the two ideas of God's sovereignty and
man's freedom. The reply is that this is true and should be
expected rather than cause surprise. All the relations between
the infinite and the finite run back into mystery. The ideas of
incarnation and prayer and Providence and all others which

[ 355 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

combine the eternal with the temporal, the infinite with the finite,
carry us finally into a realm beyond our present powers. But
this fact ought not to create doubt. In science and philosophy,
just as in theology, the same difficulty exists. The facts of
experience, however, are their own best evidence, and in re
ligion these are incontestable.

One point should never be overlooked in considering the doc
trine of election. We should bear in mind the importance of pro
claiming a universal gospel. We are untrue to the spirit of the
New Testament when we fail here. Whatever of mystery or of
difficulty remains after all we can say about election, one thing
stands out in clear sunlight in the New Testament. And that is
that God sent his Son on a world-wide mission, that preachers
are not only authorized, but commanded to preach the gospel to
every creature, and to give a universal invitation.

Hardening the Heart

6. Before leaving the subject one other difficulty should be
briefly considered. Certain passages of Scripture seem to repre
sent God as actively working to harden the human heart and pre
vent acceptance of offered mercy. In Exodus 7 : 3 God foretells
that he will harden Pharaoh's heart. In 7 : 13 it is declared that
Pharaoh's heart was hardened. In Exodus 10 : i God is repre
sented as saying, " I have hardened his heart." There are many
similar passages in other parts of the Bible which seem to at
tribute directly to God the blindness of sinners, or the hardening
of their hearts. It is not necessary to review all of them. The
same general principles apply in interpreting them in whatever
connections they are found. The following statements supply the
needed guidance:

( i ) In the Scriptures we find a sense in which arty event or act,
good or evil, is attributed to God. In Isaiah 45 : 7 Jehovah says :
" I make peace and create evil ; I am Jehovah that doeth all these
things." The context here shows that Jehovah's sovereignty is
expressed by these words. He is in no sense the author of the

[356]

Election: God's Initiative in Salvation

wicked deeds of men, but he permits them and overrules them
for a higher end. The permissive decree or purpose of God
explains his relation to events or acts which involve sin and guilt.

(2) Again, in practically all the passages in question, the con
text shows that the sin or hardening of the heart was due to
the voluntary acts of the men themselves, and not to God. In
the case of Pharaoh it is declared repeatedly that he hardened his
own heart. (Exod. 8 : 15, 32.) The whole course of events
suggests an appeal of the divine mercy and forbearance. The
final blow does not fall until every resource has been exhausted
to move Pharaoh to repentance. Sometimes he shows signs of
temporary change of heart, but the old stubbornness always
returns. (Exod. 9 : 27, 28.)

(3) The Scriptures clearly declare that men bring upon them
selves a moral and spiritual blindness and insensibility by per
sistence in sin. This may be attributed to God. But God's agency
in it is expressed through the moral and spiritual laws involved.
We cannot violate conscience without dulling the moral sense.
We cannot resist moral and spiritual light without losing our finer
appreciation of moral and spiritual realities. This appears in Mat
thew 13 : 13-15 and in Mark 4 : u, 12 and Luke 8 : 10. These
are parallel passages. In Matthew the explanation is given : " For
this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of
hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest haply they should
perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and turn
again, and I should heal them" (Matt. 13 : 15). A judicial
blindness or hardening came as a result of their own sin. It was
the result of God's action only as expressed in the laws of their
moral constitution.

(4) Finally, we must understand all such passages in the light
of the uniform teaching of Scripture that God willeth that none
should perish. He invites all men everywhere to accept his
mercy. No hand that was ever stretched out to him for help in
genuine repentance was stayed by him. If he should refuse
mercy to the truly penitent it would be a denial of his own nature
and a failure to keep his promises. For him to work actively to

[ 357 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

prevent the salvation of men would be to undo the gospel and
nullify the deepest meaning of the incarnation and atonement.
Nothing could be more directly opposed to all that Christ has
made known to us than the idea that God could or would hinder
men from accepting his grace. The final state of the wicked is
their own self-wrought destiny, as we shall see.

[358]

CHAPTER XV
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

I. THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SALVATION

3N an earlier section the general teaching of the Bible on the
subject of the Holy Spirit was set forth. Here it is only
necessary to call to mind what was said there, and to add a
few points as to the place of the Holy Spirit in the process of sal
vation. We are now to consider the work of God's grace in saving
men. The fundamental and vital relations of the Holy Spirit of
God to that work must be kept constantly in mind. To this end
we consider the Holy Spirit in relation to God; in relation to
Christ ; in relation to men ; in relation to the means of grace.

i. The Holy Spirit in relation to God.

The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God in both the Old
and the New Testaments. The term " holy," as applied to him
in the New Testament, is found in a very few instances in the
Old Testament. (Ps. 51 : n; Isa. 63 : 10, n.) No doubt the
usage arose out of the deepening ethical sense of the Old Testa
ment writers. In the New that sense reaches its supreme heights,
and the term Holy Spirit, indicating the moral perfection of the
Spirit as God's Spirit, became the prevailing designation. The
Spirit is sent from the Father by Christ, according to John
15 : 26, 27. A controversy arose between the Eastern and
Western Churches over the doctrine of the " procession " of the
Spirit. The point of controversy was whether the Spirit pro
ceeded from both the Father and the Son, or from the Father
only. The Western Church held that the procession was from
both Father and Son, while the East held that it was from the
Father only. The Scripture evidence for a strict doctrinal defini
tion is very meager on this point. We are not obliged to define
exactly the process of the Spirit's coming. The great fact stands

[359]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

forth clearly. He bears a vital relation to the Father and the
work of the Son. He is sent by the Son and proceeds from
the Father.

2. The Holy Spirit in relation to the Son.

We have already seen that the Holy Spirit acted everywhere
upon the incarnate Son of God, beginning at his birth, con
tinuing to his baptism, imparting the equipment necessary for
his mission while on earth, manifesting his power in the sacrifice
of Christ on the cross (an offering through the " eternal Spirit "),
and raising his body from the dead.

What we need to grasp clearly here is the vital and essential
relation of the Spirit to the gospel of salvation as it was preached
after the ascension of Christ. The coming of the Spirit had
been predicted and promised during the earthly ministry of Jesus.
(See Luke 24 : 49; John 20 : 22; Acts 1:5.) He was to be
the great source of life and power to believers. (John 7 : 38.)
The disciples were commanded to tarry in Jerusalem until the
Spirit came and endued them with divine power. (Luke 24 : 49.)
His coming was to impart the qualifications needed for proclaim
ing throughout the world the gospel of salvation. Jerusalem,
Judaea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth are named
as the range of the activity.

Pentecost was the fulfilment of the promise of Christ. It is so
interpreted by the early preachers in the book of Acts. Pentecost
was the historical fulfilment of the predicted baptism of the Holy
Spirit. (Acts 1:5.) This seems to have been completed at the
conversion of Cornelius, another Gentile. (Acts 10 : I to n :
1 8.) After this the baptism of the Spirit is not mentioned. He
now abides continually in his fulness with the community of
disciples. He remains on earth " forever." He is not withdrawn.
(John 14 : 16.) We are commanded to 'take" (labete, John
20 : 22) the Holy Spirit. This is a word expressing action, and
not merely passive reception, on our part. The Spirit is given,
but we must claim and appropriate him by faith. The Holy Spirit
is related to Christ's work in the following ways :

( i ) He is " another Paraclete," or Comforter, and guide who

[360]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

takes the place of Christ and carries on his work. He is to carry
forward the work of Christ now that Christ is to be absent in
body from his people. (John 16 : 7-14.)

(2) His work, however, is all related to Christ. He was to
bring to memory the things that Christ had taught. He was to
show disciples things to come. (John 16 : 12-14.) He wa§ to
teach them additional truths which they could not receive while
Christ was with them. Thus he was called the Spirit of Truth.
Truth was the instrument with which he did his work. (John
14 : 17.) He was to glorify Christ. (John 16 : 14.)

(3) The entire work of the Spirit is summed up in the task of
revealing Christ to men. (John 16 : 14.) But it is primarily a
ministry within the human spirit. It includes conviction for sin,
regeneration, sanctification, inner witness in the believer's heart,
and communion with God the Father, enduement and equipment
for service, raising of the bodies of believers, and their glori
fication.

Now all the above activities are directly related to Christ. The
Spirit's work is to reveal Christ to us, to form Christ within us.
It may be expressed thus: The sitter for the photograph is
Christ. The sensitive plate to receive his image is the human
heart. The light which shines upon the sitter is the Holy Spirit.
Even this is an inadequate illustration. For the Spirit shines also
in our hearts. We may sum up the Spirit's ministry in us as
follows: (a) He makes real in us the life-principle which was
perfectly embodied in Christ, (b) He makes the spiritual rights
and privileges secured for us by Christ, our actual possessions,
(c) He makes the ethical ideal which was embodied in Christ
our own experience in a progressive life, (d) He makes the vic
tory of Christ over sin and death our victory.

3. The Holy Spirit in relation to the human spirit.

Here, of course, are mysteries beyond our ability to penetrate.
There are, however, a few things which are clear. First, the
Spirit's action on the human spirit is in harmony with the psy
chological laws of man's nature. The Spirit of God may act
through the subconscious region within us. But his efficient action

[ 361 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

is manifest also in consciousness. He acts through the emotions,
the intellect, the conscience, and the will. His work in us fol
lows thus the lines of our spiritual being.

Secondly, the Spirit acts upon us chiefly through the truth. He
is the Spirit of Truth revealing Christ who is the Truth. His
action is not magical or sacramental. The ordinances of Chris
tianity are symbols of truth. The Spirit employs them as sym
bols, and they profit us through our own discernment of the
truth symbolized in them.

Thirdly, the Spirit's action in us is moral and personal. He
leaves us free. There is no pantheistic absorption of our spirit
in the Supreme Spirit. There is no compulsion of our wills.
We are never more deeply conscious of our own personality and
freedom than we are when the Holy Spirit moves upon our
spirits. Thus the Spirit is God immanent in us, not far away
from us and apart from his world. There is a profoundly mys
tical element in our faith through the Spirit's action. But it is
not mysticism in the narrower sense of an unethical and non-
rational and merely emotional absorption in God. The mysticism
of the Christian religion is the mysticism of the practical life in
communion with God, of battle with sin and temptation in daily
affairs. It is a mysticism which is devoted to truth and its propa
gation in God's strength. It is a mysticism which has an ethical
passion inspiring continuous effort toward the highest ideal in
Christ.

4. The Holy Spirit and the means of grace.

God has for the best of reasons chosen to approach men through
appointed means. There are two extreme views as to these means
of grace which need to be avoided. The first view tends to ignore
them altogether. It may lead to a false mysticism which makes
religion merely an ecstatic emotionalism, on the one hand, or, on
the other, it may lead to " hard-shellism," which neglects all
aggressive missionary endeavor by reason of a false view of the
divine sovereignty. The second view recognizes the means of
grace, but, in the Roman Catholic fashion, converts them into
sacraments having in themselves power to impart life. Baptismal

[362]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

regeneration and the doctrine of the " real presence " in the
Lord's Supper are examples of what is meant.

Now the fundamental error of both these views is that they
overlook the fact that the Spirit of God acts upon the human
spirit by means of the truth. He deals with us as intelligent
conscious persons capable of understanding and acting upon God's
revelation to us. Hence all the means of grace are means for
conveying spiritual truth to us. All the means of grace therefore
presuppose the truth of the gospel. Everything which may be
employed by God's Spirit for reaching and influencing men is in
some sense a means of grace. We think first of preaching and
witnessing for Christ. Then we think of the Bible, the church
and its ordinances and officers, its worship, its activities, as means
of grace. We must include also all the providential dealings of
God with us, all life's experiences, our fellowships and our
struggles, our prayers, our sufferings and losses. All these are
means employed by the Holy Spirit to teach us the truth of God.
The question may be asked: Why should there be means of
grace? Why could not God accomplish his ends directly upon
and within the human spirit without the appointed means? The
answer to these questions takes several forms :

( J ) It is seen in part in the ethnic religions. Man has always
been seeking God in some form or other. He is an " incurably re
ligious " being. And surely God has not been indifferent to men
in their search for him. And yet, by reason of sin and moral
blindness man's religious struggles present a tragic picture groping
in the dark, or striving to follow a divine light. There is great
variety in the forms of religion. Some of them are most im
moral and debased. It is clear that men needed some medium
of communication with God which would lead them surely into
the path of true faith and right living. The Christian means of
grace are an answer to this need.

(2) The answer is found in part in the philosophical struggles
of men. It might be supposed that nature supplied the medium
for communion between God and man. Human thought has
been grappling with the problem of the meaning of nature through

[363]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the centuries. It has not yet arrived at a consensus of opinion.
Many systems of philosophy are advocated to-day. Somehow
nature does not speak the same message to all. This is not due
to anything equivocal in nature, but to the condition of men's
minds. God remains, in large part, unknown in philosophy as
in the ethnic faiths. Christianity recognizes this situation and
offers links of connection with God in the means of grace. They
are ladders on which the intellect climbs to God.

(3) The answer as to the necessity for means of grace is found
in the incarnation of God in Christ. Jesus expressed the funda
mental truth about the matter when he said, " Neither doth any
know the Father, save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son
willeth to reveal him" (Matt, n : 27). So also in John I : 18
he says : " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten
Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
The prophets of the Old Testament possessed a knowledge of God
superior to any other of their times. But even this revelation
needed to be completed. The ideas of God, of duty, of im
mortality, remained too vague and uncertain to triumph fully
in the world without an incarnation. And so the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus Christ was the supreme means
of grace to men. Indeed, he was grace itself. " The law was
given/' he declared, but " grace and truth came through Jesus
Christ" (John i : 17).

We conclude, therefore, that the necessity for means of grace
is based on the necessity for the incarnation. All the means of
grace which were mentioned in a previous paragraph are sim
ply means by which the Holy Spirit forms Christ within us. He
thus carries on the work of Christ, creating his spiritual kingdom
among men. The necessity of which we here speak was due to
God's nature as pure Spirit, and to man's nature as spirit and
body. The absolute pure Spirit could become known to other
spiritual beings, who were also flesh, only by becoming flesh.
The incarnate One could become a living power in human souls
only through the regenerating and sanctifying act of the Holy
Spirit, The Holy Spirit operates most effectively through the

[364]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

use of means. Hence the means of grace are necessary for the
effectual propagation of the gospel of the grace of God.

II. THE BEGINNINGS OF SALVATION

Under this head we include calling and conviction for sin.
These are prior to God's saving act in the soul. But as preparing
the way for it, they need to be mentioned here.

I. Calling is the invitation of God to men to accept by faith the
salvation in Christ. It is sent forth through the Bible, the preach
ing of the gospel, and in many other ways. Nothing can be
clearer from the teaching of Scripture than the fact that the
call and invitation are universal and that there is a free offer
of salvation to all who hear and repent and believe. A very
few of many passages may be cited : Ezekiel 33 : 1 1 : "As I
live, saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death
of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live:
turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways ; for why will ye die, O
house of Israel?" Isaiah 55 : 7: ''Let the wicked forsake his
way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return
unto Jehovah, and he will have mercy upon him : and to our God,
for he will abundantly pardon." The New Testament abounds in
general invitations. Matthew 1 1 : 28 : " Come unto me, all ye that
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Mark 16 :
15 : " Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole
creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but
he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." Revelation 22 : 17 :
" And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth let
him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come: he that
will, let him take the water of life freely." Again, in Romans
8 : 30 : " And whom he foreordained, them he also called : and
whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified,
them he also glorified." These passages might be indefinitely
multiplied. But there is no need of this.

One question may be asked at this point. If the call is uni
versal, and if some accept because God gives them grace to

[ 365 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

accept, and others reject because he does not give them sufficient
grace, how can we regard the call to the latter class as sincere ?

The answer in part is that many a sincere invitation is given
among men where it is known beforehand that it will not be
accepted. Foreknowledge of a refusal does not affect the sin
cerity of the offer. Again, the Scriptures make it plain that re
sponsibility for rejection is upon those who reject the gospel
offer, not those who make it, much less upon God himself. Again,
it is clear that God desires the salvation of all, although he does
not efficaciously decree the salvation of all. How can we explain
this divergence between the desire and purpose on God's part?
It cannot be due to any conflict in his own nature. It must be
due to conditions with which he has to deal. We have already
pointed out those conditions in a previous section. Human sin
and human freedom are factors in God's problem with man. His
grace goes as far as the interests of his moral kingdom admit.
His omnipotence does not enable him to do a moral impossibility.

2. Conviction for sin is the result of the Holy Spirit's action
awakening in men a sense of guilt and condemnation because
of sin, and particularly because of unbelief. In John 16 : 8-n
we have the teaching of Jesus on the subject. Referring to the
coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus says : " And he, when he is
come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteous
ness, and of judgment; of sin, because they believe not on me;
of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye behold me
no more ; of judgment, because the prince of this world has been
judged."

Two or three remarks may be added. The first is that the word
" convict " here means moral demonstration. It carries the idea
of convincing the intellect, but it is more than intellectual. It is
moral. It involves the personal relations of the soul. Hence it is
not an argument addressed to the reason merely. It penetrates
the conscience as well. It is moral and spiritual demonstration.

The second point is that the conviction which the Holy Spirit
produces refers in all respects to Jesus Christ. It is a three
fold conviction, as follows :

[366]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

a. The sin to which the conviction refers is summed up as un
belief, lack of faith in Christ. This implies that unbelief is the
root sin. The Spirit may convict of any particular sin and bring
home its enormity to the conscience, such as lying, stealing, etc.
But in that conviction all sin is ultimately traced back to unbelief.
As faith in Christ is the cure for all sin, so the absence of faith,
or rejection of Christ, is an act potential of all other forms of
sin.

b. Again, the conviction of righteousness refers to Christ.
Righteousness is the opposite of sin. This conviction is the
other side, so to speak, of the conviction of sin. But it is the
righteousness revealed in the character and work of Christ, a
righteousness vindicated and made fruitful in the resurrection:
" because I go to the Father."

c. The conviction as to judgment also refers to Christ : " be
cause the prince of this world hath been judged." Christ's an
ticipated death on the cross is here regarded as the judgment, the
condemnation, and conquest of the prince of this world. Compare
John 12 : 31, 32: "Now is the judgment of this world: now
shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up
from the earth, will draw all men unto myself."

In the third place, this conviction is the conviction of hope
rather than of despair because it refers thus in every instance
to Christ. The infinite Spirit of God in a sinful heart, showing
the dreadfulness of sin, and the eternal demand of righteousness,
and the fearfulness of God's judgment against sin, would indeed
crush man's spirit and overwhelm it with despair if it were unac
companied by the reference to Christ. But the aim of the con
viction is to produce faith in the Christ who cleanses from the
guilt of sin and breaks its power, whose righteousness is shared
with the pardoned sinner, and whose death has already triumphed
over the prince of this world. Hence the conviction of the Holy
Spirit is a conviction of hope for all who yield to it and turn
from their sins.

Before passing from this topic one caution is necessary. The
doctrine of conviction should not be made into a stereotyped

[3671

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

rule. We are not to suppose that all men are required to pass
through a conscious and clearly defined conviction of sin, of
righteousness, and of judgment in explicit terms. The language
of Jesus simply interprets the meaning of the experience of con
viction. Many who have it could not state their own experience
in very clear or coherent language. But this does not alter the
fact itself. Again, we must recognize varying degrees of inten
sity in the conviction for sin. With some no doubt it is a deep
tragedy of the soul. With others it is rather a sense simply
of being out of adjustment with God. Temperaments vary, and
the experience will vary accordingly. Children are less power
fully moved by conviction, as a rule, than adults. We must make
due allowance for the differences in men and for the variety in
the manifestations of the Spirit of God.

III. THE ORDER OF SALVATION

The act of salvation and the life which follows both involve
action on God's part and on man's part. Which side should be
presented first? What is the order of salvation? A certain
cause is here at work, producing certain effects. The cause
acts in a spiritual and free manner in accordance with the nature
of spiritual causes generally. The effects in man are produced in
the same way. They are moral and spiritual effects. Now in
describing this work we may begin with the cause and trace its
action in producing the effects, or we may begin with the effects
and trace them back to their cause. Perhaps the former would
be in the strict sense the more logical method. But from the
point of view of our experience of the grace of God, the way in
which the knowledge arises in us, the latter method is preferable.
We conform here to the order of experience, and deal first with
repentance and faith, and later with regeneration and related
topics. We are not to conceive of any interval of time between
God's work in us and our response to it. Faith and repentance
become complete in us when regeneration is complete, and re
generation is an accomplished fact when repentance and faith

[368]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

are complete. So also as to repentance and faith. They are
simultaneous experiences. They are the negative and positive
aspects of the same fact. Otherwise there might be an im
penitent believer, or a penitent unbeliever, which is contrary to
the New Testament teaching, as well as our own experience.

i. Repentance

There are several expressions in the Scriptures which describe
the first stages of the Christian life. Sometimes it is a turning
from idols to the service of God. (i Thess. 1:9.) Sometimes
it is a becoming dead to sin. (Rom. 6 : i-ii.) Again, it is de
scribed as a putting off of the old man. (Eph. 4 : 22.) Again,
it may be an awaking from sleep. (Eph. 5 : 14.) But the word
which contains all these ideas, and that which especially de
fines the renunciation of sin at the beginning of the Christian
life, is repentance.

The word repentance is the translation of two Greek words in
the New Testament. One of these is metamelomai. This word
expresses the emotional element in repentance. It means regret.
But this regret may be of a godly sort leading to genuine re
pentance, or it may be a regret which produces no moral change.
(See 2 Cor. 7 : 9, 10; Luke 18 : 23; Matt. 27 : 3.)

The other New Testament word translated repentance is
metanoia. This word means a change of the mind or thought.
But the change of mind expressed by this word is more
than a mere intellectual change of view. It carries with it
the idea of will. (Luke 17 : 3; Acts 2 : 38; Rom. 2:4; Mark
i : 4, I4-)

It is clear, then, that man's spiritual nature as a whole acts
when he repents. It is not one faculty or function of the soul,
but his entire spirit. Repentance includes three elements.

(i) First, there is an intellectual element. It is a change of
thought. A man's view of sin and of God and his relations to
God undergo a change when he repents. His thought of sin
changes from approval to disapproval. His thought about God

[369]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

changes from indifference or hostility to reverence and sub
mission. His thought about his relations to God changes from
a sense of security to a sense of condemnation and exposure to
wrath.

(2) There is also a change of feeling. A penitent man has
genuine regret. But this regret is of a godly kind which leads
to a real change. (2 Cor. 7 : 9, 10.) It is to be distinguished
from the form of regret which has no godly reference. A man
may have deep regret for a wrong committed because of the so
cial condemnation which follows. He may be sorry for a crime
committed because the consequences are unpleasant. But regret
of this kind is not the godly sorrow which works true repentance.

(3) There is also a voluntary element in genuine repentance
The will is changed. A new purpose is formed. As a conse
quence of the change of will and purpose there is an actual for
saking of sin and an actual turning to God. This is the most vital
and fundamental element in repentance. No repentance is gen
uine without it.

Repentance is the result of God's gracious action upon the soul.
The goodness of God leads men to repentance. (Rom. 2:4.) In
Acts 5 : 31 it is declared that Christ has been exalted to givej
repentance and remission of sins unto Israel. And in Actsj
ii : 18 it is declared that God granted to the Gentiles repen
tance unto life.

God employs a great variety of means for leading men to re
pentance. The preaching of the gospel ; holy living of Christian
people ; the influence of the church ; providential events ; in short,
any and all channels or means through which the truth of God
may reach men are used by him in leading them to turn away
from their sins. One or two additional statements may be made
about repentance. The first is that repentance becomes a per
manent attitude of the soul toward sin. The first act of true
repentance introduces the penitent into the Christian life. But
this act is not a mere legal transaction which is over and done
with once for all. It is a permanent moral process going on every
day. Every renunciation of sin, every putting o$ of the old

[370]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

man, is in essence the repetition of the first act of repentance.
Hence it is an attitude of the soul to be cultivated. The definite
and positive renunciation of sin in every form should become the
fixed habit of the soul. Thus do we pass from infancy to maturity
in the spiritual life.

A second statement is that repentance is the identification of
a sinful man with God's attitude toward sin. It is not a meritori
ous work which entitles us to salvation. But when we repent we
think God's thought about sin. We renounce it as Christ re
nounced it. We hate it as he hates it. It is this which indicates
the great ethical significance of repentance. When a man from
the very core and center of his being repudiates sin, and abhors
that which is evil, it is clear proof that moral transformation has
begun. Indeed it is proof that he has become partaker of the
divine nature. We see from this why repentance is always
made a condition of forgiveness in Scripture, whether that for
giveness be human or divine. In God's sight a man only becomes
forgivable, that is, he only exhibits a moral attitude which can be
forgiven, when he adopts God's point of view regarding sin.
That point of view is expressed in and through repentance.

2. Faith

Faith occupies a central place in the religion of the Bible. It
is central in the Old Testament as well as the New. It is so
rich in its contents, and so comprehensive, so inclusive of the
relationships of man that it is easier to describe than it is to
define it. All brief definitions of faith come short of the complete
reality. Yet the meaning is simple and easy to grasp, in its
essential contents. We give first a brief definition and follow this
with a more extended description of faith.

Saving faith, according to the New Testament, we may analyze
into at least three elements. But it is difficult to separate one of
these from the other two.

First, faith contains an intellectual element. We believe the
truth of the gospel. We recognize in Christ and his work God's

[370

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

provision for our salvation. We accept thus the historical facts
and also the interpretation of their meaning as these are given
in the records. But it is clear that this alone is not saving faith,
Devils believe in this sense and shudder. (James 2 : 19.)

The second element is assent. The sinner convicted of his sin
and need and his dependence recognizes in the provisions of the
gospel the divine answer to his needs. This necessarily includes
an element of feeling as well as of knowledge. But it is not even
yet the faith which is the condition of salvation. Jesus recog
nized that there were transient or emotional believers. Hence
he declared that abiding in his word was the test of true dis-
cipleship. (John 8 : 30, 31.) The stony ground hearers belonged
to this class of emotional disciples. (Matt. 13 : 20, 21.)

The third element in saving faith is volition. In the last resort
faith is an act of will. It is trust in Christ as Saviour, based on
the conviction that he is trustworthy. He is trustworthy as
God's gracious revelation for man's salvation. He is trustworthy
as atoning Redeemer. He is the sufficient offering for sin. He
is trustworthy in his wisdom to guide, in his power to deliver, and
in his holiness to sanctify. He is trustworthy as Lord of the
life. When we trust him, submit our wills to him, obey him, we
exercise saving faith in him.

The second of the above elements is almost necessarily a part of
the first and third. Assent in some measure goes with intellectual
belief. It is necessarily present in the act of trust. Hence it is
not incorrect to say that saving faith is made up of belief and
trust. But assent may be conceived of as a distinct element in
which we recognize in the gospel the provision for our need prior
to the act of the will. It thus brings into clearness the fact that
our whole spiritual nature is called into exercise in saving faith,
intellect, emotion, will.

We may now enlarge upon the foregoing definition of faith by
pointing out certain relations it sustains in the Christian life. The
following statements will make these clear.

( i ) The first is that faith unites us to God. Faith in the saving
sense of the New Testament is never mere belief of a proposition

[372]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

or acceptance of a creed. " The will to believe " is a modern
phrase which expresses a man's right to hold a proposition as
true and the right to act upon the proposition. But such will
to believe is not the saving faith of the New Testament until it
unites the soul vitally with God.

(2) Again, saving faith unites us with God as he is revealed to
us in Christ. For the Christian Christ is the revealer of God.
The God we worship is the God we see revealed in Christ. He is
made unto us the wisdom, the righteousness, the sanctification,
and the redemption of God. (r Cor. i : 30.) As wisdom, Christ
is the truth about God. As righteousness, he embodies the moral
qualities in God. As sanctification, he gradually produces in us
the moral traits of God. As redemption, he is the power of
God for us and in us, breaking the power of sin and death and
removing guilt. Thus Christ ministers the divine life to us in all
necessary ways.

(3) Again, saving faith manifests itself by its works. We are
not saved by works, but by grace through faith as the condition.
Faith, then, according to the New Testament, is never regarded
as a meritorious work which secures redemption for us. And yet,
genuine faith is never thought of by the New Testament writers
as having no relation to works. True faith is a working faith.
Paul makes this clear, although he constantly opposed the Jewish
idea of salvation by works. " Neither circumcision availeth any
thing, nor uncircumcision," he says, " but faith working through
love" (Gal. 5:6). It is important to keep this truth in mind.
Otherwise there is danger of making formal faith or mere in
tellectual belief the condition of salvation. Works do not save,
but saving faith may be recognized by the fact that it is a working
faith. (James 2 : 17, 18.) It follows that obedience to the com
mands of Christ is a necessary expression of genuine faith. Faith
is indeed the great fundamental act of obedience which includes
potentially all other acts. We may briefly sum up the meaning
of faith by saying it is willingness to act. Trust in Christ implies
willingness to conform to the will of Christ. This is one of the
best of all tests of the genuineness of faith.

[ 373 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

(4) We remark further that saving faith is a form of knowledge.
An error has long prevailed on this point in some quarters. Men
have said, " We have but faith, we may not know," as if knowledge
were incompatible with faith and faith destitute of knowledge.
A hurtful error lurks in such assertions. Faith deals with the
invisible, while the ordinary scientific forms of knowledge deal
with the natural and visible world. But the distinction between
the invisible and visible does not involve a contradiction between
faith and knowledge. Scientific knowledge of material things is
grounded ultimately in faith. The uniformity of nature, the
universal law of causation, and all the great ultimate truths of
science are not demonstrated truths. They are great acts of
faith. On them the fabric of knowledge is built as upon an en
during foundation. Physical science deals with the realities of the
physical universe. But there are other realities. Faith deals
with realities as truly as does physical science. The realities of
faith are invisible and spiritual; but they are none the less real
on that account, but rather more so. We know God in the ex
periences of faith. Christ enters our souls through his Spirit,
lie is created in us the hope of glory. We know him as a trans
forming cause producing spiritual effects in us. Theology is our
effort to interpret the meaning of his presence in us in the light
of the New Testament. The New Testament constantly recog
nizes the reality of the knowledge which arises in us through
faith. (Heb. n : I ; Eph. I : 8, 9, 18; 2 Tim. i : 12.) No form
of knowledge is more genuine.

(5) Again, saving faith is the germinal grace of the Christian
life. It is God's gift to men. Out of it spring all other graces.
If love is the greatest thing, faith is the first thing in Christian
character. Faith is the first living cell, as it were, from which the
stalk and fruit of the Christian life spring. Hence the apostle
Peter enjoins that we add to our faith virtue, knowledge, self-
control, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (2 Peter
i : 5-7.) Thus all things are possible to faith in the matter of
growth and attainment as well as in prayer. Now this fruitful-
ness and power of faith are due to the fact that genuine faith

[374]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

releases divine power in us. Through faith God enters and
transforms us.

(6) Again, faith is the universal condition of salvation. A gos
pel destined to become universal must have the universal appeal.
The Jews in Paul's day sought to make of Christianity a new form
of Judaism, which would have sealed its fate as a religion for all
mankind. The apostle Paul sharply opposed them and forever
established the gospel of justification by faith. Faith is the uni
versal principle. It is the first thing we learn in our mother's
arms. It enters into every human relationship where men co
operate for common ends. Now the divinely simple gospel of
Christ selected this universal principle and made it the sole con
dition of our salvation. Of course the object of faith is Christ
himself. But while faith terminates upon the divine Saviour here,
and is inwrought through God's grace, it nevertheless remains
the same elementary and universal principle of human experience.
It places the redemption in Christ within the reach of all. No
age or nation or condition of life puts a man beyond the reach of
such a condition.

(7) Again, saving faith is an active as well as a passive prin
ciple. Looked at from one standpoint, faith is simply opening the
hand to receive. It is simply surrender of the will. But the initial
act of faith is itself an activity of the whole spiritual nature as
we have seen. This initial act becomes the permanent attitude of
the saved man : " As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord,
so walk in him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in
your faith, even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving"
(Col. 2 : 6, 7). From this and other passages it is clear that
faith is the permanent, the abiding attitude of the redeemed soul.
The repetition of the initial act until it becomes fixed in char
acter is the road to Christian growth and power.

This truth also shows how intensely personal and individual is
Christian faith. The element of proxy, or substitutionary faith,
is alien to the gospel. Hence the baptism of infants upon the al
leged faith of parents or sponsors is foreign to New Testament
teaching. Personal faith is the only kind of faith recognized

[3751

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

in the New Testament. So also the " implicit faith " which the
Catholic Church requires is foreign to the gospel. The imposition
of beliefs by human authority is contrary to the nature of saving
faith which is vital union with Christ. The beliefs of the Chris
tian arise out of this union.

(8) Again, throughout the gospel faith is the correlative of
grace. " By grace have ye been saved through faith ; and that not
of yourselves ; it is the gift of God " (Eph. 2:8). This language
of Paul goes to the heart of the matter. The Jew had a dif
ferent combination of ideas. Salvation was a matter of works on
man's part, and of debt on God's part. It was in large measure
a matter of bookkeeping. There was a debit side and a credit
side. If man could pay what he owed, or if he could purchase
by good works the salvation he desired, he was entitled to receive
it from God. To the idea of works Paul opposed the idea of
faith. To the idea of debt he opposed the idea of grace. Salva
tion is by grace. Faith on man's part is not a work of merit pos
sessing purchasing power, but the condition of salvation. Only
by faith, apart from meritorious deeds, could man be saved.

This principle appears in the Old Testament as well as the New.
Abraham was accepted, not on the ground of works, but on con
dition of faith. All Jews who were saved were saved by the
same condition. The law did not annul the promise. The law
was itself a provision of grace for the chosen people. Its end
was to lead the Jews to Christ. Salvation by works was im
possible, because of human sin and weakness. Indeed if a man
had obeyed perfectly at any time (an achievement beyond the
reach of the natural man), his obedience would have been due
to his union with God by faith, not to his own inherent moral
power. Man was made for God. All his moral and spiritual
attainments are God's gracious gifts. Christ's revelation made
clear the fundamental principle on which all men were saved
before and after he came. It was never a matter of works and
debt, but always of faith and grace.

(9) The above sheds light on a difficulty which many have felt
concerning the way of salvation in the Old Testament teaching.

[376]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

It is often asserted that men were saved by works in the Old, but
by grace through faith in the New Testament. But this is an
error. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. In
Galatians 3 : 15-22 Paul sets forth the meaning of the law in rela
tion to the gospel. It was never intended that men should be saved
by the works of the law. If men had possessed moral power for a
perfect obedience, it would have been due to living union with
God by faith. Through such union God's gracious working in the
soul imparts the power of obedience. Hence, for Paul, the idea
of an obedience which could earn or merit salvation was incon
ceivable. Man possesses no moral or spiritual power apart from
God. The enabling gift of God's grace on the one side and man's
response by faith on the other would thus be the only possible
explanation of even a sinless life.

The conclusion of Paul is that the law, which came four hun
dred and thirty years after the call of Abraham and his justifica
tion by faith, did not set aside the faith principle in salvation.
The law had another purpose. It could not make alive, but it
could train the people of Israel into a sense of need for a Re
deemer. It could bring them a sense of their own weakness.
Thus it could prepare them for Christ, who is the end of the law
for righteousness to all who receive him by faith.

j. Conversion

Conversion is the word employed in theology to designate the
turning of a sinner from his sins unto Christ for his salvation.
This includes both the forsaking of sin which we have defined
as repentance, and the trust in Christ which we have defined as
faith. The term conversion usually refers to the outward act of
the changed man which is the manifestation of the inner change
in his soul. A converted man is one in whom the grace of God
has wrought a spiritual change. That change has found inward
expression in his repentance and faith, and outward expression
in his turning from the old life of disobedience to the new life
of service,

[37/1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Conversion is the result of God's gracious action in us creating
us anew in Christ. (Acts 3 : 26; Ps. 51 : 10; Ezek. 36 : 26.) It
is also the result of our own free action. In conversion we choose
the way of life in response to motives and appeals presented to
us in the gospel. (Prov. i : 23; Isa. 31 : 6; Ezek. 14 : 6; Mark
i : 15; Acts 2 : 38, 40, 41 ; Phil. 2 : 12, 13.)

There is a sense in which a Christian is " converted " when
ever he turns from a wayward life back to the service of God.
He returns from his backsliding and renews his vows to God.
(Luke 22 : 31, 32; John 13 : 10.) But theological usage has
tended more and more to restrict the word to that first turning
from sin to God, which is otherwise designated as regeneration, or
the new birth. For the sake of clearness it is better to employ
some other word when we refer to the return of Christians from
backsliding. There are a number of expressions which set forth
the latter idea. " Renewal of vows," " returning to Christ," " for
saking the worldly life," " reconsecration," and other forms of
expression are available for the purpose.

4. Regeneration

What is regeneration? This is one of the first questions we
must ask and answer. Regeneration may be defined as the
change wrought by the Spirit of God, by the use of truth as a
means, in which the moral disposition of the soul is renewed in
the image of Christ. All definitions come short of the reality.
But the above contains the essential points. It is a change
wrought by the Holy Spirit. It is accomplished through the
instrumentality of the truth. It is a radical change of the moral
and spiritual disposition. It is a change in which the soul is re
created in the image of Christ.

It is not necessary to present separate groups of Scripture to
prove each of the above statements. It is important to note, how
ever, the uniformity of the New Testament teaching as to re
generation. It is not a doctrine found only in the writings of
John and Paul, It is found in the teachings of Jesus, of Hebrews,

[378]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

of James, and of Peter. It is most clear throughout the writings
of the New Testament. We notice a few of the more important
passages. In Matthew 12 : 33-35 Jesus declares that good fruit
can only come from a good tree, and that to make the tree of
human nature good, it must be changed. The entire Sermon
on the Mount implies the necessity of the new birth. Its pre
cepts are practicable only to the regenerate. The pure in heart
are pronounced blessed because they shall see God. (Matt. 5:8.)
The pure heart is not ours by nature. Men are conscious of
impure hearts. Matthew 15 : 19 gives a brief description of
the unrenewed heart. Jesus teaches the necessity for regenera
tion in his saying that a man who finds his life loses it, and
that he who loses his life " for my sake " finds it. (Matt. 10 : 39.)
The change here described is nothing less than a moral and spir
itual revolution in the soul. The Gospel of John abounds in
teachings as to the new birth. In the third chapter is the classic
passage on the subject. In the conversation with Nicodemus Jesus
expressly declares that the natural man is unfit for the kingdom
of God ; that a new birth from above is necessary ; and that the
Spirit of God works the change. Man is not wholly passive in
the change thus wrought. For " as many as received him," to
these he gave the power, or authority, to become the sons of
God. (John I : 12.) Faith is the condition of the new birth.
Paul deals with Christians in his Epistles. But there are indirect
or direct teachings as to the new birth. He declares that the
carnal mind is enmity against God and can be renewed only by
the Spirit of God. (Rom. 8 : 3-9.) In 2 Corinthians 5 : 17 he
says, " if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." In Ephe-
sians I : 19 and 2 : I and in Colossians 2 : 30 to 3 : 3 he declares
that the present life of the believer is a risen or resurrection life.
He has been spiritually raised from the dead by the Spirit of life.
Again in Hebrews 8 : 9-11 we have a graphic description of
the New Covenant in which the law of God is written on the heart,
and in 6 : 4 clear reference is made to the fact that Christians
are " partakers " of the Holy Spirit. The new birth is assumed
in both these passages. In the Epistle of James the same teach-

[379]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

ing appears. In i : 18 it is declared that God " of his own will "
brought us forth by the word of truth. In I Peter I : 23 it is
declared that Christians were begotten again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, even the word of God which liveth
and abideth.

The Scripture passages we have cited are only a small fraction
of the entire number to be found in the New Testament bearing
on the subject. These will suffice for the present purpose, which
is to establish the teaching on a solid scriptural basis. We may
next consider a few details in which a certain emphasis is needed.

First, we distinguish regeneration from other things by show
ing what it is not. Regeneration is not a new creation in the
sense that the soul is destroyed and a new one put in its place,
nor in the sense that the faculties are destroyed and new faculties
put in their place. The change is not in the spiritual constitution
of man, but in his moral and spiritual disposition. God does not
undo in the new creation in Christ what he did in his first creation
in Adam. Sin is a power in reversed action in the soul. It
is the misdirected energy of all man's powers as God made him.
Regeneration breaks the power of sin, and sets free man's moral
and spiritual life, and turns his powers in the right direction.

In regeneration man's will remains. But now it is a will
obedient to a higher will which it recognizes. So also in regenera
tion the mental powers remain. But now the mind of man finds
a higher mind and discovers that the truth he has been seeking
has been seeking him all the time. His own mind finds its true
self in God. The heart of man remains in regeneration, but
now his affection finds its true Object in the Supreme Companion.
All lower loves give way to the highest of all. Fellowship with
God becomes the realized goal and destiny of the heart. Man's
personality remains when he is regenerated, but it is now a
transformed personality. Paul the apostle was the same as Saul
the persecutor. Yet the change in him was so great that he
described himself as an entirely new creature. Thus in regenera
tion man finds himself, comes to himself, realizes his own poten
tialities and possibilities as he can do in no other way.

[3801

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

Again, regeneration is in no sense to be confounded with a
change on the natural level of man's life. In it we are born, not
of blood, nor of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John I : 13.) We note a few natural processes which must
not be confounded with regeneration :

Regeneration is not education. There may be, and usually is,
an educational factor in the influences which lead to regeneration.
Truth is employed as the instrument of the Spirit. The mind is
enlightened. But education can only remove ignorance. Regen
eration breaks the power of sin. The change wrought in regen
eration can never be achieved through education alone.

Again, regeneration is not transition from childhood to man
hood. It must not be confounded with the natural process known
as adolescence. During the period of adolescence the boy and
girl undergo a marked change. In a sense a new world opens
at that time. The history of conversions shows that it is a period
of very great importance for the religious life of the young.
But it is a period which in and of itself produces no spiritual
life. It is full of potentialities for evil as well as good. By all
means it should be recognized and utilized for bringing home the
truth of the gospel to the developing soul. But it is a fatal error
to confound adolescence with regeneration. The latter is the
special work of God's Spirit creating in the soul the image of
Christ.

We remark further that regeneration is not evolution on the
natural plane. Of course there is no objection to the general as
sertion that in the new birth we pass from a lower to a higher
level. In that sense the word evolution might apply. But the
assertion that regeneration is merely the unfolding of previously
existing elements in man is false. There are no resources in the
natural man, nor in his environment, to produce the change
wrought in regeneration. A wholly new cause is introduced. fA
new beginning is made. A" power from above enters the soul of
man. The change has been described by a modern psychologist
as, on our part : ( i ) an uneasiness, or a sense that something is
wrong about us as we naturally stand; and (2) the solution, a

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

sense that we are saved from the wrongness by making connec
tion with the higher powers.1

The point which needs emphasis in the doctrine of regeneration
is the connection with the " higher powers." According to Chris
tianity the higher power is the Holy Spirit of God revealing and
creating Christ in the soul.

Several points are to be emphasized also on the positive side.

The first is that regeneration is an instantaneous act, and not
a gradual process. The preparation may be gradual. Influences
leading to the result may come from various sources and con
tinue through many years. This is only to assert that God's action
in blessing man follows the lines of natural law as far as this
is possible. God's grace seeks man long before man responds to
it. But the moment comes when the will submits and the moral
bent of the nature is changed. The moral center of gravity of
the soul shifts to another point entirely.

This truth holds along with the other truth that some are con
verted so very young, or so quietly, that they are not conscious
of the change when it occurs. But the fruits of regeneration are
present in the life and these are conclusive evidence of the fact
itself.

A second point on the positive side is that in regenerating the
soul the Holy Spirit makes use of the truth as the means em
ployed. It is important to grasp clearly that it is not the truth
presented merely in the form of argument or moral suasion
apart from the action of the Spirit. Nor is it the action of the
Spirit independently of the truth. It is rather the Spirit employ
ing the truth. The effect of the Spirit's action is seen in man's
response to the truth of the gospel. But the truth apart from the
Spirit's action in the soul would never produce the result. The
fact that the truth is the instrument of the Spirit appears in
numerous passages. In all cases recorded in the New Testament
regeneration is effected through the preaching or teaching of the
truth. The appearance of Jesus to Saul suddenly on the Damas
cus road is probably no exception to the rule. Saul, the per-

1 William James.

[382]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

secutor, had every opportunity to receive impressions about
Christ prior to this experience. Elsewhere the truth appears
uniformly as the influence employed by the Spirit. The disciples
follow Jesus in response to his appeal. On the day of Pentecost
the thousands who are regenerated respond to the gospel message.
In Acts 16 : 14 it is declared that the Lord opened the heart of
Lydia to give heed to the things spoken by Paul. In Ephesians
6 : 17 the word of God is declared to be the sword of the Spirit
with which he does his work. In James i : 18 and I Peter I : 23
it is declared that Christians are begotten through the word of
God.

In emphasizing the instrumentality of the truth in regenera
tion there is no thought of truth apart from Christ in an abstract
way. It is the truth as it is in Christ. The Holy Spirit has as
his specific work the making known to us the things of Christ.
Every truth presented is a truth in Christ, since Christ is in his
own person the gospel of our salvation.

We need not be detained here with possible exceptions to the
rule that the Spirit employs truth as his instrument in regen
eration. Infants dying in infancy are changed in so far as they
inherit a natural bias toward sin. But how this change is wrought
by the Spirit it is needless to inquire, since there is no light avail
able on the subject beyond our speculations. The general prin
ciple is entirely clear, and we may be assured that apparent excep
tions may ultimately be harmonized with it.

One important conclusion follows from the Spirit's use of
truth in regeneration. It is that regeneration is not effected
through the act of baptism. In a number of New Testament
passages baptism is clearly associated with conversion, and nearly
always with the beginnings of the Christian life. (See Acts
2 : 38; Rom. 6 : 3, 4; Col. 2 : 12; i Peter 3 : 21.) But there
is no conclusive evidence that in any of these passages bap
tism is regarded in the Catholic sense as an opus operatum,
i. e., an act which of itself regenerates without reference to
the mind of the recipient. Nor do they sustain the view of
the Disciples that baptism completes the act of regeneration.

[383]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The error in both views is in regarding baptism as a means to a
given end, when it is only the symbolic outward expression of
the end when it has been otherwise accomplished. Baptism sym
bolizes regeneration, but it does not produce it. Baptism was the
outward sign of an inward change which had already taken
place in the believer. It was repentance, faith, regeneration,
conversion in symbol. It was none of these in fact. To confuse
fact with symbol or symbol with fact is to change radically the
nature of the gospel. In the passage in i Peter 3 : 21 we are
cautioned against this error. It is not the physical act that has
worth, Peter says. It is not a physical cleansing. The true
significance of baptism is moral and spiritual. It is the answer
of a good conscience toward God. Here truth is clearly dis
tinguished from symbol. And the symbol only has value as a
mirror for truth. Unless we grasp the truth reflected in the
symbol and act upon it — that is, unless we are consciously
obedient unto God and have within the witness of a good con
science — the outward symbol is of no value whatever.

A third positive statement is that in regeneration the divine
energy manifests itself in us through the activity of our moral
and spiritual faculties. As we have already seen, faith and
repentance are conditions of regeneration. No unbelieving or
impenitent man is regenerated. Every one who has the new
birth is a penitent believer. This helps us to avoid the error of
thinking of God's action in regenerating us as if it were a
physical force, and as if men were things instead of persons.
Christianity is not pantheism. God treats us always as free per
sons. God's method with us is always moral and spiritual. We
respond to his appeal. His grace becomes effective in our re
sponse. When we turn from sin, when we trust the Saviour,
when the will becomes obedient, then, and not until then, is the
regenerating act complete. We are not to think of an interval
of time between our act in response to God and God's act in
changing us. There is no interval of time between. The two
sides of the relation are completed at one and the same time.
They are contemporaneous events in the soul's life. When a

[384]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

stone falls into a lake we may conceive the resulting wave as
made up of two semicircles which together constitute the com
pleted circle. So also when God's Spirit enters the human soul
and regenerates, the human and divine sides may be conceived as
semicircles, which together constitute the completed act. And
as the semicircles in the lake originate at the same instant of
time, so also the human response by faith is simultaneous with
the regenerating act of God's Spirit.

IV. REGENERATION IN ITS LARGER RELATIONS

No teaching of Scripture brings us nearer the heart of Chris
tianity than the doctrine of regeneration. We may understand
how central it is in the Christian religion by noting briefly its
relations to other great ideas of the gospel.

1. Regeneration is closely related to the idea of God. When
the soul is regenerated it is changed fundamentally in moral and
spiritual quality. The quality it receives is a reproduction in us
of qualities in God. For the first time then we learn through ex
perience the kind of being God is. We are made partakers of
the divine nature. Prior to regeneration we may have theoretical
knowledge about God. Now we have positive acquaintance with
him. It thus appears how man's spiritual life renders the highest
service to him in his metaphysical speculations. The speculative
instinct is very strong in man. He cannot refrain from setting
up interrogation-marks at the portals of all the great mysteries
of experience. Particularly is this true regarding the supreme
Reality behind all that we see and touch and know and feel. And
yet our speculative strivings yield little satisfying knowledge until
the new life comes to us from God. It is then we " taste and
see " the reality we had been reasoning about. God becomes a
fact for us. He is no longer a logical deduction. And in dis
covering him we most truly discover ourselves.

2. Regeneration is also closely connected with revelation ; Jesus
Christ is God's supreme revelation to men. But Christ's revela
tion remains outside of us until God reveals his Son in us.

[385]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The truth of God becomes visible in Christ. It is, as it were,
projected upon the screen of his humanity for us to see. But "it
does not become revelation to us in the complete meaning of
the word until the objective becomes the subjective truth in us.
It is not surprising that unregenerate men often fail to accept the
historical revelation of God in Christ. They close the spiritual
avenues of approach to that revelation and cut themselves off
from the inner confirmation which they might have in the re
newal of their own natures.

3. Again, regeneration is vitally related to the doctrine of
Christ's person. Christ is teacher, prophet, revealer. But he is
more than all these combined. He is life-giver. Here we touch
the heart of the gospel. The distinguishing mark of Christ in his
relations to men is his relation to them as spiritual cause. Men
miss the true meaning of Christianity when they take it as a
group of ideas merely. They should take it rather as a group
of spiritual forces or causes. Of course it is a great group of
ideas. Our doctrinal system is the result of the effort to express
these ideas in a coherent and unified way. But the ideas arise
out of the facts and forces.

Now Christ is the supreme force or cause in our revealed
religion. We must so understand him if we are to understand
him at all. We are not to understand him simply as our example
to imitate ; or as one proved to our reason to be divine through
miracles and signs alone; nor as an objective revelation of what
God is, to be accepted as an article of faith. We are to take him
rather as one who has life in himself and who has power to re
peat or reproduce that life in others. This fact is the great
theme of the Fourth Gospel. The idea is repeated in many forms.
In him was life, and the life in him becomes light in us. (John
I : 4, 5.) Of his fulness men receive, and grace for grace.
(John I : 1 6.) He came that we might have life, and have it
more abundantly. (John 10 : 10.) He declared that rivers of
living water should flow from him who was joined to Christ by
faith. (John 7 : 38.) In short, the Gospel of John is a great
historical and experiential demonstration of the divine function

[386] '

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

of Christ as life-giver to men. He is the realized ideal of God's
approach to man, his self-revelation for their salvation. He is
also the realized ideal of man's search for God. He is the door
through which God comes to men. (John ro : 1-3.) He is also
the door through which men must pass to find God. (John 10 :
9.) Thus the whole religious life of the human race finds its con
summation in him the life-giver.

4. Regeneration is vitally connected with the work of the Holy
Spirit. As we shall see, the Spirit of God works this change in
us, reproducing in us the life in Christ. The Holy Spirit is
God immanent in men. His regenerating act in the soul is the
new spiritual beginning for man.

5. Regeneration is in the closest relations with all other doc
trines and facts of the spiritual life. For example, it imparts the
nature whose moral contents are best expressed by the word son-
ship. When we are regenerated we become actual sons of God.
Justification expresses the standing of the regenerate before
God, although faith is the condition of both. Sanctification is the
gradual unfolding of the life imparted in regeneration into its
own inherent possibilities of moral and spiritual beauty. Per
severance is the continuance of the divine life in us even unto
the immortal and glorified forms into which it will finally open at
death. The doctrine of last things is the account we give of the
destiny of the regenerate in the life to come and along with it the
fate of those who do not possess that divine life.

6. To the above we may add that regeneration is the key to the
problem of final causes. We have seen how we learn in it for the
first time the character of God. In it we may also discover in
great measure the ultimate purpose of God. Two facts stand
out very clearly as we view the world at its present stage of de
velopment. It is an unfinished and also a sinful world. Nature
stretches from crystal through plant and animal up to man. It
becomes moral and spiritual in the constitution of man. And yet
it is marred and broken by sin and comes to little. As one has
said, " Man seems to be an unfulfilled promise." In him are
great and wondrous intimations of something higher which yet

1 387 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

seems unattainable. In regeneration God and man come together
again. Man comes into possession of new moral power and begins
to realize his destiny as a son of God. The final cause or ultimate
aim of God appears. He is bringing many sons to glory. Thus
in the regenerate life of man we have the fact basis for our view
of the first and final causes of the world. God's creative energy
in the soul tells us of his original creation of the world. The
sonship which he is producing in us tells of the end of the uni
verse, a kingdom of free spiritual beings bearing to him the rela
tion of sons to a Father.

7. Certain forms of philosophic theory are best met and over
come in the light of man's regenerate life. Pessimism construes
the evil and suffering of the world as proof of the non-existence
of a good God. Pluralism is impressed with the struggle between
the good and evil powers, and concludes that there is no supreme
God. If there is a good being, he is opposed by one or more
beings who are equally powerful. Hence the age-long struggle
between good and evil which seems to have no end. Pantheism
despairs of personal victory on man's part and takes refuge in
the thought that sin is merely a passing phase of the divine
manifestation, and that man will be delivered from his otherwise
hopeless struggle by reabsorption in the infinite. His personal
life will come to an end.

Now man's regenerate life in Christ shows to him the great
realities and truths which overcome all these speculations. These
may be summed up as follows : ( i ) A divine power which is
personal and moral. Its inworking in the soul is essentially
ethical. It produces moral character in man, and creates personal
fellowship. (2) A deepening and enrichment of man's personal
life. Not the slow and painful emptying out, or draining off of
the elements of human personality, as Buddhism teaches, but an
intensifying of them all is the Christian ideal. Love is ever
deepened. The passion for righteousness and immortality burns
as an ever-increasing flame. (3) The actual conquest of evil
by the regenerate man. Pessimism and pluralism are thus set
aside by the facts of experience. We already have the victory in

[3881

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

principle. " This is the victory that hath overcome the world,
even our faith " (i John 5:4). We may say, then, that regen
eration shows that Christianity is more than a " cognitive series."
It is not merely a group of ideas or doctrines harmoniously ar
ranged in a system. It is also a " causal series." It is a group
of spiritual forces and causes producing given effects in a moral
and spiritual kingdom. Hence Christianity cannot be reckoned
with or dealt with as a series of ideas alone. It must be studied
as a group of causes and effects. The ideas arise out of the
facts. The facts and causes are fundamental.

8. Finally, regeneration is the key to the problem of knowledge
in Christianity. In regeneration we find the operation of the
facts and forces which constitute the Christian religion. Here are
the data to be interpreted. Here are the causes and effects which
are to be explained. Here are the spiritual realities which supply
the material for theological science. We gain historical knowledge
of Christianity by a study of the literary sources in the Bible.
But these leave us outside the temple of spiritual realities. We
never know Christianity on the inside until we know it through the
regenerate life of men. Experience alone can qualify for the
interpretation and exposition of Christianity because experience
alone supplies a first-hand knowledge of the facts.

V. JUSTIFICATION

I. Definition

Justification is a judicial jact of God in which he declares the
sinner free from condemnation, and restores him to divine favor.
It takes place when the sinner trusts in Christ and his merits for
salvation. These two statements contain the essential elements of
the New Testament doctrine of justification. We single out
several points for special emphasis.

Observe, first, that justification is a declarative act of God.
The word of which our English word justify is the translation
(Greek: dikaioo) in the New Testament does not mean to make

[389]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

just or righteous, but to pronounce or reckon just. There are
numerous Scriptures supporting this statement. In the Epistle
to the Romans the whole argument turns upon the problem of
how a man may become righteous before God. Paul declares that
in the gospel there is revealed a righteousness of God from faith
unto faith, (i : 17.) In Christ God has provided a righteousness
for us which becomes, through faith, the ground of our accep
tance with God. Through our living union with Christ his right
eousness becomes the source of our own actual righteousness.
Justification, however, relates to the former while sanctification
relates to the latter righteousness.

Observe, next, that this declarative act of God is grounded in
the work of Christ. This is the heart of the argument in Romans.
The passage in which the idea of justification is made most clear
is Romans 3 : 23-26. It reads as follows : " For all have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God
set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to show
his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done
aforetime, in the forbearance of God ; for the showing, I say, of
his righteousness at this present season; that he might himself
be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus."

An analysis of the passage shows the following result: (i) All
men have sinned. There is no exception to the rule. (2) All
need a justification other than that which they can themselves
provide. (3) God has set forth Christ to be a propitiation for
our sins. (4) We are, on the ground of this propitiatory work
of Christ, declared to be just, or reckoned as just. (5) This
justifying act of God was freely bestowed by his grace on con
dition of our faith in Christ. (6) Finally, this work of Christ
was necessary in order that God might himself be just as well
as the justifier of him who believes in Christ. It is evident from
this passage that God does not and cannot justify a sinner in the
sense of declaring him to be righteous. The gospel is God's ar
rangement by which a sinner may enter into a new relation to
God by faith in Christ. In this new relation God may justify

[390]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

the ungodly. (Rom. 4:5.) The basis and ground of justifica
tion then is the work of Jesus Christ. His atonement for our
sins is the sole basis of God's justifying act.

We note, thirdly, that God's declarative act justifying the sin
ner is on condition of faith. This principle is repeatedly asserted
in the New Testament. The Old Testament is quoted as proof
of the fact that faith has always been the condition of justification.
The faith of Abraham is taken as the great typical instance of
faith. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness. (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15 : 6.) In the eleventh chap
ter of Hebrews a long list of Old Testament saints is given, all
of whom lived by faith. In Habakkuk 2 : 4 there is a terse but
comprehensive statement of the great principle : " The right
eous shall live by faith." In Galatians 2 : 16, 20 the idea is set
forth in clearest terms, in contrast with the works of the law as
a ground of justification. Negatively, therefore, justification is
never on the ground of works. This was the cardinal error of
the Jews. The most difficult of all ideas for them to appro
priate and assimilate was that of salvation by grace through
faith. In Ephesians 2 : 8 the truth is stated in most emphatic
terms. Salvation is " by grace," and grace is exercised toward us
" through faith," and faith in turn is '' the gift of God." Again,
in the fourth chapter of Romans Paul sums up the principle of
justification by faith in several statements. Taking Abraham as
the great exemplar of faith, he asserts that his faith was reck
oned or imputed unto him for righteousness. (Ver. 3, 9.) Now
if a man seeks to earn salvation by works, Paul says the funda
mental principle of the gospel is destroyed. (Ver. 4.) But to
him who believes in Christ and renounces works as the ground of
salvation, his faith is imputed to him for righteousness. (Ver. 5.)

We observe, in the fourth place, that the contents of God's
justifying act are freedom from condemnation and restoration
to divine favor. Justification is the bestowal of a new stand
ing before God. The penalty of the law which the sinner has
transgressed is now remitted. He is pardoned. At the same time
he is received into the divine favor. The grace of God now flows

[391]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

out actively to him and imparts every moral and spiritual bless
ing. In both of these aspects of the divine good will toward
the justified man, the ground of blessing is Jesus Christ and his
work. In Romans 5 : I, 2 the blessings of justification are set
forth in comprehensive terms. We note: (i) The ground of
justification: " through our Lord Jesus Christ." (2) The con
dition: " being therefore justified by faith." (3) The remission
of penalty: " Let us have peace with God." There is no longer
the menace of a broken law. (4) The new standing in the
divine favor: ''through whom also we have our access by faith
unto this grace wherein we stand."

In the fifth place, justification is an act of God at the begin
ning of the Christian life and is never repeated. The freedom
from condemnation and restoration to God's favor are permanent
states. Thus justification establishes a new relation to God
which is never broken. No repetition of the justifying act is
ever possible or necessary. The fact that justification is never
repeated has an important bearing on the quality of our spiritual
life, as we shall see. Our service to God is qualified and con
ditioned at every point by his great act of justifying grace.

2. Why is Justification by Faith f

In reply to this question, we have already seen that faith is
made the condition of justification in opposition to the Jewish
notion of works and merit as the basis of justification. Faith
is itself not a meritorious work. It is rather God's gift to us as
well as our response to God.

There is another reason why faith is the condition of justifica
tion. It is because faith is the universal principle of the Chris
tian life. Faith is living union with Christ. It is the condition
of every other Christian grace, of all Christian growth. Faith
is a continuous relation of the soul to God. It will abide even
in the future life along with hope and love, (i Cor. 13 : 13.)
Looking on the human side of salvation we may say that faith
is the precondition and presupposition of everything else. It is

[392]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

the germinal principle of the spiritual life. Regeneration, adop
tion, sanctification, good works, perseverance, glorification, are
all fruits of faith. So also is justification. Justification belongs to
the great series of spiritual blessings which come to us in and
through Christ. And faith is the condition of them all. Properly
understood, it is the total human response to the approach of
God's saving grace in Christ to sinful men.

j. The Relation of Justification to Christian Experience

The necessity and value of the doctrine of justification come
into great clearness when we consider it in relation to the needs
of the spiritual life. It is indispensable to the Christian religion.
Without it a great lack would be felt, a great need unprovided for.
That need may be stated as follows : In order to the highest form
of service to God at least two elements are required by man. One
of these is that it shall be free. The other is that it shall be filial.
Every element of bondage must be removed. Freedom from sin,
from condemnation, and freedom from doubt are necessary.
The confidence, the love, and the loyalty of the son toward the
Father must be present. In a word, the Christian life requires
a true basis for the assurance of salvation. The free and filial
attitude is only possible when every doubt as to our standing
with God has been cleared away. Justification by faith secures
for us this priceless boon and sets us forever free for filial service.

There are two considerations which make clear the need of
justification in order to this free and filial service, this assurance
of salvation. One is the evils which arise without the doctrine
of justification. The other is the fact that no other teaching of
the gospel can supply the need which is supplied by justification.
We consider these briefly.

( i ) First, there are numerous evil tendencies in a religious life
unsupported by the doctrine of God's justifying grace. One of
these is the tendency to lower the Christian conception of God.
A sentimental view of God as an indulgent and rather weak
Father may take the place of the infinitely Holy Father of the

[ 393 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

gospel. The Fatherhood of God in the New Testament is the
loftiest ever presented. He is both the infinitely loving and the
supremely righteous God.

Along with this tendency to lower the idea of God is another
which weakens the conception of sin. Christianity has deepened
the meaning of sin beyond anything the world ever knew before.
The Holy Spirit " convicts " men of sin as the condition of the
entrance of God's renewing grace. Consequently when the moral
nature of man is awakened under the Spirit's power, he becomes
conscious of sin and of a sense of guilt and condemnation which,
if unrelieved, may lead to despair. He sees sin as God sees it.
Now a man may refuse to be awakened in his moral and spiritual
nature. He may resist the Spirit of God and cling to a false
hope based on a weakened sense of sin and a lowered conception
of God. But whenever an adequate sense of sin arises there is
need for God's justifying act, and without it men are without
hope.

Again, without the doctrine of justification there is a strong
tendency to lapse into the old Jewish error of salvation by works.
This always results in one of two ways. Either a man becomes
self-righteous and imagines himself better than he is; or else
his hope is ever clouded by the fear lest he may come short of
the divine requirements. If he is lacking in a sense of sin and
its meaning, he will tend to become self-righteous. If he has
been really aroused in his moral nature, if his conscience is keenly
alive to moral realities and the holy law of God, he is in danger
of falling into despair. These are common ways in which men
have gone astray. Neither of them is the Christian way. The
Christian religion deepens the sense of sin. But it proclaims a
grace which has met all the needs of the sinner. God's act of
justification cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve
the living God.

Another form of this tendency is seen in the Roman Catholic
doctrine. This teaches that justification is a gradual process, go
ing on throughout the Christian life. Penance and various forms
of discipline are necessary to secure justification. Men are justi-

[394]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

lied only so far as they are sanctified. The result is that men are
never assured of salvation in the present life. Dorner has said
with reference to the Romanist doctrine, that we are justified
only as far as we are sanctified : "Since justification is a con
tinuous process, the redeeming death of Christ, on which it de
pends, must be a continuous process also; hence its prolonged
reiteration in the sacrifice by the mass. Since sanctification is
obviously never completed in this life, no man ever dies com
pletely justified; hence the doctrine of purgatory."

The doctrine of " salvation by character," as proclaimed by some
adherents of the so-called *' new theology/' is very closely akin
to the Catholic doctrine in its essential principle. They do not
make use of sacraments in the same way as do Catholics. But
they ignore the efficacy of Christ's work for us and depend upon
inherent moral qualities in man rather than upon God's justifying
act. Here again the old legalism is certain to spring up in a new
form. The old doubts are sure to return as the spiritual vision
becomes purified and sin appears in its true light. The awakened
moral consciousness can never behold within itself such moral
attainments as may supply a ground of hope. Hence there will
follow self-deception as to the real moral state or else despair.
The biblical doctrine of justification avoids both these errors.
There is no self -righteousness possible since God's justifying act
is wholly of grace bestowed upon the sinful and undeserving.
There is no danger of despair, because God's own power is for
us in the redemptive act of Christ, and it is in us as renewing
grace to transform us into his own image.

(2) The second consideration which shows the necessity for
justification in Christian experience is that no other gift of God's
grace can supply the need. A very brief review of the other
blessings will show this. Forgiveness is of course a restoration
of man to right relations with God, but acts of sin are committed
after the power of sin is broken. The Master taught us in the
Lord's Prayer that we should repeatedly pray for forgiveness,
while justification is never repeated. Regeneration, as we have
seen, renews the moral nature, but the life of the regenerate man

I 395]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

is not sufficiently uniform or self-consistent to supply the con
stant need of assurance that he is accepted by God. Repentance
and faith and conversion mark a great spiritual crisis in the soul's
life. But it is the common experience that Christians do not find
themselves able to maintain this level of experience. There are
many turnings or " conversions " after the first one. Assurance
as a fixed fact cannot be based upon this experience alone.
Sanctification is a gradual process, but it is a gradual process
whch is subject to many variations. Perseverance is itself in
large measure conditioned upon our assurance of justification.
Even our faith, which is the vital principle of all our Christian
living, is a variable factor. We often pray, " Lord, I believe,
help thou my unbelief."

We conclude, then, that we have in justification a great funda
mental truth which cannot be dispensed with in our spiritual life.
It is not our subjective experience in any of its varying forms, in
which we trust. It is God's great and gracious act addressed to
our variable experience to sustain it amid all its changes and
struggles. Especially is the doctrine of justification needed to
assure us of God's acceptance of us when crises arise and our
souls are tried by fire. Then we are tempted to doubt and fall
away. But it is then our established position, our unchanging
status before God, makes us strong to dare, to suffer, and to
achieve. We cannot dispense with the doctrine of justification
by faith, if we are to retain the elements which condition the
highest attainments in the Christian life.

4. An Objection to the Doctrine of Justification

An objection which is urged by some against the Christian doc
trine of justification by faith must now be considered. The lan
guage in which the objection is stated varies to some extent, but
the principal idea remains the same. It is said that the doctrine
implies an artificial or fiat righteousness. This means a right
eousness which is not genuine, but fictitious, since God merely
reckons righteousness to one who does not possess it. It is an

[396]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

artificially made righteousness, a righteousness by decree. With
this goes the further statement that the doctrine of justification
is unethical and tends to a legalistic or forensic conception of
salvation. It is not denied that Paul taught this doctrine of jus
tification, but it is claimed that it was a piece of Jewish legalism
which he brought over from his former life. It was thus a
passing phase of teaching which did not represent the essential
principles of Christianity. Paul, it is true, did teach a true
spiritual Christianity, but the objectors insist that the spiritual
element of his teaching lies side by side with the Jewish-legal
element and in contradiction to it.

In replying to this objection we begin with the general state
ment that it grows out of an abstract method of dealing with the
teachings of the gospel. As we have remarked in other con
nections, it is impossible to understand the Christian religion un
less we take it in its unity as an organic whole. If we separate
it into parts, and then consider any of the parts in the abstract,
or without reference to the living connections of the whole, we
always go astray. Analysis into parts is necessary for clear think
ing, but analytical thought loses its way when it forgets the vital
unity of the Christian religion in human experience and in the
New Testament teaching.

These remarks are especially applicable to the doctrine of
justification by faith. Justification is one aspect of the salvation
which comes to men through Christ. That salvation includes a
living faith which unites us with Christ, and makes us partakers
of his life. It includes regeneration, which changes radically the
moral disposition. It includes vital union with Christ, and the
indwelling Spirit of God, which recreates us in the moral image
of Christ. It includes the divine process, which looks to our
gradual sanctification and glorification. When we consider justi
fication in connection with these facts and the truths which arise
out of them, all the objections fall to the ground. If faith is taken
in an abstract way as merely historical belief, and if God's justi
fying act is conceived of merely as that of a judge in a court
acquitting a criminal of a charge of which he is guilty, then indeed

[397]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the objection might hold. But these are not the New Testament
ways of taking either faith or justification. The faith that justi
fies is the faith that regenerates. The act of God which justifies
is an act which also imparts moral character to the justified.

With these general facts held in mind we may reply to the
objection in detail.

(1) First, we reply that Paul's doctrine is not a remnant of
Judaism, but on the contrary is directly opposed to the Jewish doc
trine of salvation. In the Epistle to the Romans Paul combats
the Jewish method of justification by works. He opposes to it
the Christian doctrine of justification by faith. Indeed, it is his
doctrine of justification which is fundamental to Christianity as
the universal religion. It is because God is not " the God of the
Jews only " that Paul insists upon it. Justification by faith puts
the gospel in reach of all men, Jews and Gentiles alike.

(2) Again, the Christian doctrine of justification by faith is not
legal and forensic, but vital and spiritual. The objector overlooks
the fact that the phrase " by faith " transforms the idea of justi
fication in such manner that the merely legal principle disappears,
or is gathered up into a higher unity. The word justification,
or the bare conception of justification apart from faith, would
indeed be legal and forensic. But the Christian reality is not
the bare conception. It is justification vitalized by the comple
mentary thought expressed by the phrase " by faith." The un
godly who is justified " by faith " is the ungodly brought into a
godly relation which is not artificial and unreal, but most vital
and real. The condemnation which is removed and the favor
to which the justified is restored are most real.

(3) We remark further that justification by faith is not un
ethical, but rather leads to the highest ethical qualities in the
justified. The atonement of Christ, as we have seen, is the
ground of justification. That atoning act was the glorification of
love. And love is the sum of ethical qualities. Now the justified
man is drawn into participation with Christ in his self-emptying
love. The justified man is crucified with Christ. Self is slain.
He rises to a new life of love. Justification indeed simply

[398]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

bestows a new standing with God on condition of faith. But
the new standing is not that of one who yet remains untouched
by regenerating power. It is not a new standing unrelated to a
new inner principle of life and holiness. The two go together. To
take justification out of this context of life and power is to
reverse its New Testament meaning.

(4) The doctrine of justification provides for a need of the
spiritual life which the objection overlooks. That need is that
legalism be destroyed in the Christian experience. Salvation by
grace through faith is opposed at all points to legalism in the old
Jewish sense. Now Paul's teaching on justification is not only not
legalistic in itself, but is his chief weapon for destroying legalism.
The human conscience is naturally legalistic. It is prone to adopt
methods for earning salvation. It is slow to yield to the gospel of
grace. It is difficult to believe that God is willing to accept the un
godly. Sin has created a barrier. It seems incredible that a man
can at a stroke be emancipated from his guilt and restored to God's
favor. This is simply a description of the sin-consciousness in
men generally. It is a matter of experience, and not of theory
or abstract reasoning.

Now no form of teaching can answer the needs of the soul
which does not recognize this sin-consciousness. We mention
two forms of such attempt which fail. First, it will not do to
declare the sin-consciousness to be merely subjective. To tell
a man that sin is not sin, or that guilt is not guilt does not con
vince. He cannot believe that such a statement represents God's
attitude toward sin. The very make of his moral nature forbids
his believing this. The moral ideals and values, which he longs for
but does not possess, are seen to be valid because of the reality
of his sin and guilt. If sin is unreal, then the moral kingdom as
a whole loses its significance, because each is the contradiction
of the other. The reality of the sin- and guilt-consciousness
in man is thus a fact to be reckoned with. Again, it does not
meet the case to tell the sinner that he needs only to realize in
himself the consciousness of Christ, as is urged by some. As
Christ enjoyed unbroken fellowship with God, and possessed

[3991

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

a perfect filial consciousness, so also, it is claimed, we may
be saved by realizing in our own consciousness this life of fel
lowship. But this is to set for man an impossible task. It is im
possible to dispel the sense of sin and guilt as with a magician's
wand, by a mere act of our own will. The first and immediate
effect of the spotless purity of Christ and of the Spirit's action
in us is to throw our sin and guilt into deeper shadow. We are
convinced of sin as we never were before. The sinless conscious
ness of Christ then becomes a goal wholly unattainable by us. It
shines in solitary splendor in the heights far beyond our reach.
It is, therefore, a false psychology which approaches the matter
in that way. What men need is a gospel of redemption from sin,
of relief from the sense of sin and guilt.

We conclude, then, that Paul's doctrine of justification by faith
was his method of destroying man's sense of sin and condemna
tion. Legalism strives to overcome it by all sorts of devices and
strivings and good works. Paul declares that there is no device,
no form of striving or good works which can ever meet the need.
And yet if a man is to enter a life of freedom, of filial devotion
to God, a life of love and loyalty, somehow the legal method must
be destroyed along with the legal consciousness. Therefore, says
Paul, God meets a sinner in Christ, justifies him, bestows a new
standing, accepts him as son, and forever closes the question of
law and condemnation, of sin and guilt. And this he does in his
gracious justifying act. It is this which is at once followed by the
new filial consciousness " whereby we cry, Abba, Father " (Rom.
8: 15).

Before leaving the subject of justification we may answer a
question which is often asked: Whether the justified man is
conscious of God's justifying act? It is usually replied that he
is not, since man cannot be conscious of what is done by God.
This reply, while containing an element of truth, is insufficient. It
does not cover all the facts. Indeed, it is but another result of
the fallacy of analytic thought in its effort to explain that which
is organically one. God and man, in the saving act, are not
separated by an interval of space, as if man were here at this

[400]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

point, and God yonder at another. Justification and regeneration
are aspects of an indivisible whole. Peace with God, forgiveness,
reconciliation, are other aspects. All of these arise in the soul
at the same time with the exercise of saving faith. Conscious
ness of one implies consciousness of all the others. 'And while
justification is God's act and not our own, yet it is invariably
present with other forms of experience which are clearly our own.
We are assured of justification, therefore, just because the great
salvation, which comes to us in Christ, includes it as an essential
element of the indivisible whole. That salvation is like a precious
jewel having many facets from which divine light is reflected.
The process of analysis requires time. We may not understand
in an intellectual way at the outset all the rich contents of our
new life in Christ. But we possess the jewel, not in parts, but as a
whole. When we count the facets we shall find that we possessed
them all at the beginning.

VI. ADOPTION AND SONSHIP

Justification, as we have seen, has reference to sin and the
law. In it a new relation to the law is established, a new stand
ing with God is bestowed. Adoption is a blessing which con
stitutes the new corresponding relation to God. But before set
ting forth the contents of adoption a prior question calls for
attention. Is there any sense in which all men are sons of God?
Is God the Father of all? There are two groups of Scripture
teachings which at first sight seem to contradict each other. A
few of each of these groups will serve the present purpose.
There is no dispute as to Adam's relation to God as son before
sin and the fall. Sin of course produced a change. The Old
Testament has comparatively little which sheds light on the par
ticular point at issue. Angels are there recognized as the sons of
God. (Job i : 6; 2 : i.) Israel as a nation is called God's son.
(Hosea u : i.) In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus describes
God as being fatherly and loving toward the evil as well as the
good. (Matt. 5 : 45.) In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the

A2 [401]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

prodigal represents the publicans and sinners who were despised
by the self-righteous Pharisees. The Father is represented as
longing for and welcoming the return of the wayward son. (Luke
15 : 11-32.) At times Jesus seems to employ the word Father
in an absolute sense. He is " the Father," and is paternal in his
yearning toward all men. (John 4 : 23.) The apostle Paul at
Athens declared that all men are the offspring of God. (Acts
17 : 28.) In Galatians 4 : 1-6 Paul declares that prior to the
adoption through Christ men were in a state of nonage. They
were heirs, yet no better than servants. Only when Christ came
did they receive the adoption of sons. These passages show that
there is more or less elasticity in the biblical use of the idea of
fatherhood and sonship as expressive of a divine-human relation.

The other group of passages makes this statement even more
clear. In Matthew 13 : 38 Jesus declares that the " good seed "
of the parable are children of the kingdom, while " the tares "
are the children of the wicked one. He declared that the Pharisees
were not sons of God, but sons of the devil. (John 8 : 44.)
Again, in John i : 12 men become sons of God by faith. In
Galatians 3 : 26 Paul makes the same assertion. All men are
children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. There is no need to
multiply passages. There can be no question as to the distinction
made between believers and unbelievers in these passages.

Now the problem of exegesis here is to find a key for tEe in
terpretation of both groups of passages. The following are some
of the efforts in this direction :

1. First, it is urged that all men indiscriminately are sons of
God in the same sense. There is no need of regeneration. Men
need only to claim their sonship and it is theirs. God is the
Father of all men in the same sense. He may discipline and
train his sons, but in the end all will be saved. This is the view
of universalism. It is of course to be rejected. It ignores all
those passages which distinguish between the moral states of
men and between faith and unbelief in relation to sonship.

2. A second view is that no one is a son of God in any sense
except those who are redeemed by Christ. These interpret all

[402]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

the first group of passages as having no reference to sonship.
They distinguish between " off spring " and sonship ; between the
nation Israel and individual sons of God; between the prodigal
who was a son in the parable and others who are sons actually.
No doubt there is much to be said for some of the reasoning
here. But in some respects it is not altogether conclusive. It is
not easy, for example, to separate the earlier from the later
stages in the parable of the Prodigal. The wanderer becomes a
real son upon repentance and return to the Father. But the
motives and influences and relations prior to the repentance are
all based on Fatherhood and sonship. It is not easy to conclude
that this relation means everything after repentance and nothing
whatever before.

3. A third view is that God is the Father of all men, but not
all men are sons of God. This is based on the broad ground that
God is unchangeable. Since sonship and Fatherhood are mem
bers of a spiritual relationship based on attitude and disposition,
we cannot assert that man's sin has changed God. Disobedience
has corrupted man and destroyed his normal and true relations
to God, but it has not changed God in the fundamental fatherly
impulse of his being. Hence it is claimed we may explain those
passages which assert that wicked men are sons of the devil
and become sons of God only by faith, as well as the other pas
sages which seem to assert God's universal Fatherhood. The
seeming contradiction is thus removed.

This view undoubtedly states a great truth in part. But it
lacks completeness. God is unchangeable. He is eternally lov
ing. But his love for sinners is not manifested in the same way
as his love for his true spiritual sons. The fatherly impulse
in God, therefore, cannot express itself toward the incorrigibly
bad except in wrath and penalty. But this we usually attribute
to him as judge rather than as Father. Of course in the final
analysis the judicial and paternal in God are unitary elements of
his character. But fatherhood and sonship, as we know them,
are reciprocal relations which cannot well be asserted as existing
in isolation from each other. In defining sonship and Father-

[403]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

hood, therefore, each member of the relationship should corre
spond to the other.

4. A fourth view is that all men are natural sons of God, but
only believers in Christ are true spiritual sons. Man was made
in God's image, and natural sonship is regarded as identical with
the divine image in man. Now, of course, if this is a correct
definition of sonship, the view is correct. For man, even in his
sin, does retain part of the original likeness to God. So long as
the necessity of the new birth is insisted upon to convert the
natural into true spiritual sons, there is no objection to the view
except the practical difficulty of keeping the natural and spiritual
sonships distinguished from each other in the popular mind.

5. It seems, therefore, that a fifth view may be urged which
more accurately expresses the truth and explains all the passages
cited. It is that all men are constituted for sonship to God, and
that God desires all men to become sons, but that this ideal is
only made real in the new birth. In favor of this we note the
following facts :

First of all, the New Testament certainly defines sonship in
the highest and ideal sense in terms of the new birth and moral
likeness to God. " Be ye imitators of God as beloved children,
and walk in love," is the exhortation addressed to Christians.
(Eph. 5 : i, 2.) This implies clearly the possession of moral
and spiritual traits by the children which correspond with moral
and spiritual traits in God. Here then we have sonship and
Fatherhood defined in their final and ideal form. It means " the
response of moral qualities in man to moral qualities in God."

Secondly, this moral likeness to God expressed by sonship,
while it arises out of union with Christ through faith, is only
possible to those who previously possessed in some measure the
original image and likeness of God. No beast can become a son
of God. Only a being who is endowed with capacity for son-
ship can become a son. Man's filial relation to God is analogous
to his moral relation. ' There is none good, no, not one." This
does not imply that man does not possess a moral constitution,
or is lacking in capacity for moral action. He can speak truth

[404]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

and eschew falsehood and perform other moral acts. But his
moral character does not conform to God's standard. He needs
redemption by God's grace. He has a moral constitution, but
not a moral character. In like manner, he was made or con
stituted for sonship, but attains it only through the new birth.
He has a filial constitution, but has not the filial character.

In the third place, the point is made clear when we remember
that true sonship involves both a moral constitution and at the
same time a moral relation. What did Adam lose when he
sinned? He did not lose his moral constitution, but he did
lose his moral and filial relation to God. He became disobedient.
There was broken fellowship. Sin separated him from God.
When the prodigal in the parable left home, he broke with the
father. The filial relation was destroyed and the paternal relation
ceased to be operative. But the prodigal retained the filial con
stitution. He could not unmake his soul. His own moral con
sciousness told him, however, that he had forfeited the claim to
sonship. " I am no more worthy to be called thy son." The
poignancy of his grief arose from the recognition of this fact,
the loss of sonship. The father awaited the return of the prodigal
with open arms because the paternal constitution was unchanged
even while the paternal relation was interrupted. That it was
interrupted is clear from his own words, " My son, who was
dead, is alive again." It is strange how men have insisted on
making this parable teach an uninterrupted relation between
father and son in spite of sin, when it so clearly teaches that sin
destroyed the relation. The constitution was not destroyed on
either side, but the relation was completely destroyed. This view
explains many passages of Scripture to which reference has been
made and others which cannot now be cited except in a general
way. Paul's teaching in Galatians (3 : 1-5) points out that the
children and heirs were no better than servants in their position
until Christ came. They were in bondage under the rudiments of
the world. They were destined for sons, but did not become sons
until Christ came and they received the adoption. Sonship was
thus the great spiritual boon held in reserve for them. They

[ -105 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

were by nature constituted for it, but did not possess it. The
grace which bestows it enriches the filial spirit in many ways
which could in no other manner have been attained.

The view here presented differs from the view of the natural
sonship of all men in the definition of sonship. It emphasizes
the relation as well as the constitution in sonship. The outcome
is the same provided the idea of natural sonship does not lead
to a dangerous error. The crucial point is this: How does the
natural son become a true spiritual son ? Two answers are given.
Some say by regeneration, and only upon condition of faith in
Christ. Others says by natural evolution. The two answers lead
back to divergence of view as to sin. One group asserts man's
inability apart from God's grace; the other, that he only needs
education and growth. With the former, as one has said, natural
sonship is like Robinson Crusoe's first canoe on the desert island.
It was finished away from the water and lay like a log, too heavy
to be moved. Natural sonship does not bring men to God. The
other view says it is like a canoe moored to shore in a narrow
stream. It only needs to be untied, and the current will float
it down the stream and out to sea. The new birth is a cardinal
doctrine of Christianity. Any form of natural sonship which
ignores it leads to serious errors. If this point is not safe
guarded, there is always danger of introducing a false conception
of man and sin and of man's relations to God. From this it is
easy to pass to other wrong views throughout the entire range
of doctrine.

SONS BY FAITH AND ADOPTION

We have already seen that the New Testament puts much
emphasis upon the fact that we are sons of God by faith. Our
own free response to the invitation of the gospel is a most valu
able element in our sonship. It is no merely physical relation. It
is more than a natural constitution. These may be imposed upon
or imparted to us by God's action apart from our own. Hence
the ethical and spiritual quality is absent. Our own free response
by faith is a new element. In it our personality rises to a new

[406]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

level. We receive and exercise thus a right or authority to
become a son. (John i : 12.) We who receive Christ set our
seal to this that God is true. (John 3 : 33.) Setting the seal is
a kingly act to authenticate a document. Thus our freedom is
respected. God's supreme desire for us is that we shall become
sons by choice. Whatever we are by nature, this lifts us to a
new level.

Faith is the condition of sonship. Adoption is the method
of God for introducing sons into his family. Adoption was an
idea derived from Roman law. Paul borrows it to express the
idea of the gospel. (See Rom. 8 : 15, 21, 23; Gal. 4 : 5, 6.) By
adoption a son was received into the Roman family with all
the rights of the true son. So also by adoption we are received
into God's family by faith, with all the rights of the household.

The act of adoption is of course accompanied by the act of
regeneration. Paul has no thought of limiting sonship to a
mere legal proceeding. The Spirit of God has made the son alive
in Christ. The Spirit dwells in the heart. The law of the
Spirit of life has made the son free from the law of sin and
death. John emphasizes the fact that we are children begotten
of God. We have the nature of true children as well as the
relation of sons. We are thus sons by nature and also sons by
adoption.

TRAITS AND BLESSINGS OF THE SONS OF GOD

The sons of God possess the moral character of God. (Matt.
5 : 48; 22 : 39.) They trust God. (Matt. 6 : 25-34; Luke 6 :
22ff.) They obey God. (Matt. 12 : 50; 7 : 24.) They imitate
God. (Eph. 5 : i, 2.) They love God. (Matt. 22 : 37; Luke
10 : 27.)

The blessings bestowed upon the sons of God are great and
manifold. Indeed, all they receive from God is the gift of the
Father to his sons. Some of these are the following: The sons
of God receive his Spirit in their hearts, and the Spirit teaches
them the language of the divine family. They say, " Abba,
Father" (Rom. 8 : 15). The Holy Spirit teaches them how to

[407]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

pray. (Rom. 8 : 26, 27.) They are made partakers of the
divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4.) The holiness of God the Father
is reproduced in them. (Heb. 12 : 10.) Of course daily for
giveness for sins is a priceless boon. (Matt. 6 : 12.) God's
incessant care for his children is pledged in strongest terms.
(Matt. 6 : 33.) Eternal life is theirs through union with Christ.
(John 17 : 3.) The indwelling of Father and Son in their hearts
is promised. (John 14 : 23.) The eternal kingdom is given to
them by inheritance. (Matt. 25 : 34.) A place in the Father's
house is also promised. (John 14 : 23.) They are heirs of God
and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.

Finally, we remark that these traits and blessings of the sons
of God are mediated to them through Jesus Christ. Men become
sons by faith in him. In four ways at least he mediates our
sonship to us. a. As eternal Son he reveals to us the eternal
Father. Through him alone does this knowledge come. In
Matthew n : 27 and in John i : 18 the declaration is made in
unmistakable terms, b. As our brother and high priest he opens
the way to the Father. Through him we may approach the
Father with all confidence in humility and faith. (Eph. 2 : 18;
Heb. 7 : 24, 25; 4 : 15, 16; 2 : 17.) c. As King, he makes
us joint-heirs with him. (Rom. 8 : 17.) d. The basis of all
the above functions is his work as atoning Redeemer. Because
the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also became
flesh. The means by which he achieved their deliverance was
the destruction of the power of the devil and of death. The
end in view was that he might bring many sons to glory. All
this appears in the remarkable passage in Hebrews 2 : 14-18.

Here, then, we find the crowning work of God's grace, the
bringing of many sons to glory. Here also we find the unifying
principle of all the unfoldings and developments of the temporal
order. The key to the progress of history, of nature, and of
grace is found in this one luminous truth. We may sum up
this truth broadly in the following statements: The universe
is not a meaningless movement of physical forces governed
only by natural law. It is governed by an eternal purpose. It

[408]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

moves toward a goal. That purpose arose in the heart of the
eternal Father. It revealed itself in the temporal manifestation
and atoning work of the eternal Son. Its content was the re
production of sonship in the hearts of men. Its consummation
is to be in the full emancipation and manifestation of many sons
in an eternal order. To this great end even nature itself is sub
ject and moves onward under the guidance of this eternal pur
pose toward its goal. (Rom. 8 : 18-30.)

VII. UNION WITH CHRIST

All that has been said as to the beginnings of the Christian
life, and indeed all that is yet to be said as to its continuance,
may be summed up in one phrase, union with Christ. A back
ward glance over the ground we have covered will show the truth
of the first part of the statement. In the act of repentance the
soul turned away from its sin and turned toward Christ. When
it exercised faith, it was trust in Christ as Redeemer and Lord.
In conversion the outward change of life was an assumption
of the life and duties of a follower of Christ. In regeneration
the change produced was the reproduction in the soul of the
moral image of Christ. Justification was God's act, annulling
the sentence of condemnation and bestowing a new status because
of the new relation of the soul to Christ. It is clear from this
that in becoming a Christian a man enters into a new personal
relation. Saving faith is not acceptance of a creed nor of a
new intellectual belief of any kind. It is not joining the church
nor receiving the " sacraments " or ordinances. It is not " be
lieving the Bible " in a mere intellectual way. Becoming a Chris
tian is entering a new personal relation to Christ. " As many
as received him " to them God gave power to become sons. " He
that hath the son hath life." " As ye received Jesus Christ the
Lord, so walk in him." Barnabas exhorted the saints to " cleave
unto the Lord."

All these forms of statement make prominent the general truth
that the Christian religion involves as its most central and vital

[409]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

fact a new personal relation to Jesus Christ. But even this does
not fully express all the meaning of the Christian life. It is a
life of union with Christ. We note first a number of Scriptures
which express this idea in a direct and literal way and then
certain figurative expressions which convey the same meaning.

/. Scripture Teaching

The union of Christ with the believer is clearly expressed in
the Gospel and Epistles of John. In John 14 : 20 are the phrases,
" I in you," and 4< ye in me." In 14 : 23 Christ declares that he
and the Father will come and make their abode in the obedient
heart. In i John 2 : 6 it is declared that if a man claims to
" abide in him," he ought to walk as Christ walked.

The phrase " in Christ " is a favorite one in the writings of
Paul. There is scarcely any phase of the Christian life which
the apostle does not express by means of this or an equivalent
expression. There is no condemnation to those who are " in
Christ " (Rom. 8 : i). Christians are alive unto God " in Christ
Jesus " (Rom. 6 : n). If any man is " in Christ," he is a new
creature. (2 Cor. 5 : 17.) Paul declared that he had been
crucified and that Christ lived in him. (Gal. 2 : 20.) We are
baptized " into Christ " (Gal. 3 : 27). Christ dwells in the heart
by faith. (Eph. 3 : 17.) We are created " in Christ Jesus unto
good works" (Eph. 2 : 10).

There are also numerous figurative expressions which set forth
the truth in a striking manner. We begin with the Fourth
Gospel. John employs the following metaphors to express the
intimacy of the union between Christ and his people: He is the
Bread of Life, the Water of Life, the Light of Life, and the
Living Vine whence the branches derive their life. He is also
the Good Shepherd. All these and other forms of representation
in the Gospel repeat the great fundamental of the Christian sal
vation, that believers are united with Christ by a living bond.
We glance briefly at each of those we have named.

In the sixth chapter are the remarkable sayings about the

[410]

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

bread of life. Christ is himself the bread of life. He is living
bread, as contrasted with the manna given in the wilderness,
which could not give life. Except men eat the flesh and drink
the blood of the Son of man, they have no life in them. If they
eat this living bread they will live forever. Christ explains that
he refers not to literal flesh and blood, but to spiritual assimi
lation. Men are to labor for the food which does not perish.
The true labor, however, the true work of God, is that men
believe on him whom God hath sent. The whole of chapter 6, and
especially verses 27-35 and verses 47-58, make these truths clear.

He is also the water of life. Two passages show the main
teachings of this figure, vis., 4 : 12-14 and 7 : 37-39. To the
believer Christ is a spring of water arising within, which gives
eternal life. From him who believes shall flow streams of living
water. In 7 : 39 the statement is added that the reference was
to the Holy Spirit which was not yet given, but whose function
should be to make real the living union with Christ.

Again, Christ is the light of life. The Prologue of the Gospel
declared that in him was life, and the life was the light of men.
He heals a man born blind, thus giving physical light. As usual,
the act of faith is required. The man must go wash in the pool
of Siloam. Jesus makes this gift symbolic of the supreme gift of
spiritual light which he bestows. (John 9 : 5-7, 39-41.) Christ
is the good shepherd who knows his sheep by name, and who is
known by them, who feeds them, and cares for them, and pro
tects them, who lays down his life for them. (John 10 : 1-18.)

He is the living vine. Believers are the branches, who receive
life from him. Apart from him they are destitute of all spiritual
power. They are constantly cleansed and made more fruitful
if they abide in him, the living vine. (John 15 : 1-8.)

In other parts of the New Testament we have other figures
which express the same truth.

Christ is the head of the spiritual body of which Christians
are members. There is a common life of the head and members.
As the members are subject to the head -in the physical body,
so are Christians subject to Christ, their spiritual head. Chris-

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

tians are one with each other because they are one in Christ. (See
2 Cor. 6 : 15-18; I Cor. 12 : 12; Eph. I : 22, 23; 4 : I5ff.;
5 : 29, 30; and many other passages.)

Christ is the foundation or corner-stone, and believers are
built upon him. In Colossians 2 : 7 the figure of the foundation-
stone is combined with that of the roots of a tree. Christians are
to walk in him, " rooted " in him, and " built up " in him. In
Ephesians 2 : 20-22 Christ is the corner-stone, and Christians are
a holy temple in the Lord in which God dwells by his Spirit.

Again, Christ is the husband of whom the church is the wife.
Christians are married to Christ. (Rom. 7:4.) Christ is purify
ing his church and will present it to himself as a spotless bride.
(Eph. 5 : 26, 27.) At the return of Christ, the bridegroom,
the bride is ready for him. (Rev. 19 : 7.)

The life union with Christ is consummated at the resurrection
of the body. He is the resurrection and the life. (John n : 25.)
We shall be glorified with him. Through his resurrection life we
also shall triumph over the grave, (i Cor. 15 : 2 iff.) The union
of believers with Christ has been summed up as follows: (i) We
are crucified together with Christ. (Gal. 2 : 20.) (2) We died
together with Christ. (Col. 2 : 20.) (3) We are buried together
with Christ. (Rom. 6:4.) (4) We are quickened together with
Christ. (Eph. 2:5.) (5) We were raised together with Christ.
(Col. 3:1.) (6) We are sufferers together with Christ. (Rom.
8 : i7.)2

We consider next the nature of the union with Christ. A
brief summary is as follows : It is a union which is vital, moral,
spiritual, personal, inscrutable, and abiding.

The union is vital. The life of Christ flows into us. It is not
a union by an external bond. It is not as if two physical objects
were placed alongside of each other or tied together. It is not
as if two metals were fused together by heat, or welded together
by external force. It is rather the vital union of the members of
a living organism. Our life is gathered up into his life and
derives its quality from the divine qualities in him.

8 Quoted by Dr. A. H. Strong from a tract entitled " The Seven Togetbers,"

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

It is a moral union. By moral we do not mean a union merely
of personal influence as of one friend over another; nor of
teaching as of the influence of teacher over pupil; nor of in
spiration as of a martyr over men generally. Nor do we mean
merely posthumous influence, as of Christ through the New Tes
tament records of his life and work. All these forms of in
fluence do indeed represent aspects of Christ's moral union with
us. But they are not the essential and fundamental element. By
moral union we mean primarily a union by which, through his
indwelling, Christ reproduces in us his own moral traits. His
contact with us is direct and immediate, " and we all, with un
veiled face beholding or reflecting as a mirror the glory of
the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory unto
glory even as by the Lord the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3 : 18).

It is a spiritual union. Here there are at least three truths
which need recognition. It is a union of spirits, not of bodies.
Again, it is a spiritual as contrasted with a natural union. Christ
sustains a natural relation to all men and to all nature. In him
all things consist, or hold together. (Col. I : 17.) But the
natural relation does not yield the spiritual results. He becomes
spiritually related to us by faith. The third truth is that it is
a union through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit in us recreates
us in the moral and spiritual image of Christ. Here we need to
guard against the error of an alleged sacramental union, as if the
so-called sacraments in themselves had power to communicate
or sustain life.

It is a personal union. By this it is meant that in our union
with Christ there is no absorption, as pantheism teaches, of our
own personality in the life of God. This union with Christ in
creases rather than diminishes the idea of personality. The
human will and conscience, the intellect and affections, stand
forth in greater distinctness than ever before. The " I " and
the " thou " of the relationship are more clearly defined. But
they are not defined by mutual antagonism. They are defined
by harmony of desire and purpose; by receptiveness of life on
one side and communication of life on the other. They are

[ 4T.3 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

defined by the gift of love on the divine side and the reproduction
of love on the human. There is mutual love, mutual trust, mutual
sympathy, between us and Christ. The mutuality of the relation
accentuates our distinction from him while showing our per
sonal union with him.

It is an inscrutable union. On one side it is hidden and beyond
our capacity to grasp or understand. How the divine Spirit
mediates Christ's life to our spirits is a question which runs
back into mystery as do all ultimate questions of existence and
of life. But the mysterious and inscrutable aspect of this union
should not lead to a vague and indefinite mysticism. The effects
in our own consciousness are well known to us. These are our
own acts of worship and service. The inscrutable power in us
reproduces itself in us through acts of self-sacrifice, through
putting away of sin, through Christian work, through loving
deeds, and, in fact, in all the practical activities and strivings of
the Christian life.

It is an abiding union. It is not necessary to dwell upon this
phase of the matter here. It will be treated when we consider
the subject of Christian perseverance. We need only remark
that the continuance of the union is based upon the grace and
power of him with whom we are united. Its effect is to cancel
and destroy every form of earthly union which opposes or con
tradicts it. We are gradually drawn away from all forms of sin
and worldliness into a self-consistent unity of life with Christ.

2. Consequences of Union

The consequences of our union with Christ need not detain us
long. They are involved in great part in what has just been said
of the nature of the union. We add, however,, a few statements.
They are as follows :

( i ) Our union with Christ involves our identity with him in his
relations to God. We refer here not to metaphysical relations
of nature or essence, but to spiritual relations involved in our
salvation. We are accepted in him. We stand justified as we

The Beginnings of the Christian Life

have been because we have accepted him. Because we are in him,
and because his life and power are working in us, we are poten
tially perfect. The forces which will gradually carry on the
saving process to the end are now working in us because of our
union with him. He is made unto us wisdom and righteousness
and sanctification and redemption, not by any legal fiction, but as
a vital reality.

(2) This union involves our identity with Christ in his relations
to the human race. We must recur for a moment to the doctrine
of atonement. We learned that Christ's union with the race as
a whole made possible an atonement for the entire race of man.
His organic unity with the race lies at the foundation of his re
demptive work. God so loved the world that he gave his Son.
We who are joined to Christ by a living faith share his love for
the whole world. His purpose, his desire, his energetic working
for the human race, we have known in our own joyous experi
ence of his redeeming grace. But we fail to understand his will
in and through us unless we seek to make his redemptive work
effective for others. In other words, the consciousness of those
who are united with Christ is a missionary consciousness. They
share his redemptive passion, his redeeming purpose for all man
kind, and show it by devotion to the task of making Christ known
to the ends of the earth.

(3) Our union with Christ involves our identity with him in his
relations to sin and death. This is implied in the preceding. Yet
the New Testament emphasizes the fact that the conquest of sin
and the conquest of death can only come about by union with him
who conquered sin and death. The present form of our union
with him implies the presence in us of the resurrection power.
The present energy of his working in our spirits is but the begin
ning of the process which is consummated only in the resurrection
of the body. The measure of the present power in us is the power
which raised him from the dead. (Eph. I : 18-23.)

(4) Finally, our union with Christ involves his identity with us
in all our earthly experiences. " I am with you always, even unto
the end" (Matt. 28 : 20) was his promise to his disciples. He

[4151

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

is with us in all our labors, our sufferings and temptations, our
struggles and triumphs. In John I : 1 6 it is declared that all of
us have received " of his fulness," and " grace for grace." This
probably means that the divine fulness which dwelt in him is the
measure of the fulness vouchsafed to his people. The phrase,
" grace for grace," probably means grace answering or corre
sponding to grace. The grace we receive corresponds with the
grace he had received. The grace we may expect in temptation
is the grace he received in temptation. Our grace for labor and
conquest answers to the grace he received for these ends. There
is no limit to the divine fulness granted to him. So there is no
limit to the divine fulness bestowed upon us in him. There is
no variation in the fulness nor in God's willingness to bestow
it upon us. That which is variable is our faith, our receptiveness.
To grow in grace is to grow in receptiveness of the divine fulness
and life.

CHAPTER XVI
THE CONTINUANCE OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE

I. SANCTIFICATION

i. General Survey

EFORE presenting the biblical teachings as to sanctification
we note its general meaning and its place in the system of
life forces which constitute the Christian religion. The aim
of God in establishing his kingdom among men is to produce
holy men and women, both as individuals in their relations to him
and as members of a holy society. In the accomplishment of
this aim, two things are necessary: first, the establishment of a
new relation between God and men, and secondly, the production
of a new character corresponding to the new relation. The word
" sanctification," as employed in the New Testament, expresses
both the new relation to God and the new character which corre
sponds. Sanctification means then the state of one who is set
apart to the service of God, who belongs to God. It also means
the inner transformation of one thus set apart, the actual realiza
tion of holy character.

(i) A review of the teachings of both the Old and New Testa
ments confirms these statements. In the earlier stages of the
Old Testament the first of these meanings comes clearly into
view, and in the later stages the second meaning was emphasized.
The priesthood was holy unto the Lord, devoted to him and
his service. So also were the vessels employed in God's service
in the sanctuary, and the temple itself. The people of Israel
were a holy or sanctified people. In all these instances the chief
meaning is set apart or devoted to God and his service. (Gen.
2:3; Exod. 3:2; 10 : 10, n, 22; Num. II : 18; I Chron.
23 : 13; Joel i : 14; Isa. 8 : 13; Ezek. 36 : 23.)

B2 [417]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

In the prophets, especially in the later period, there was a deep
ening of the moral sense, and holiness was interpreted in its
ethical quality. The moral character which corresponded to it
was often contrasted with the outward relationship. In Micah
6 : 6-8 there is a striking instance. That which pleases Jehovah
is not thousands of rams or ten thousand rivers of oil. " To
do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with thy God " the
prophet declares to be the deeds well pleasing to Jehovah. The
moral and spiritual character must correspond with the covenant
relation. Not holy offerings by a holy priesthood in a holy
temple, but holy character is the requirement. In Isaiah I : 1019
we have another similar passage, as in a great number of in
stances in the later prophets.

In the New Testament the word " sanctify " has both mean
ings — set apart to God's service, belonging to God, and also be
coming holy inwardly. Even where the word sanctify or sanc
tification does not appear, the idea is present in both senses in
a large number of passages.

In the teachings of Jesus great emphasis is given to righteous
ness in the sense of inward purity. External righteousness, as
of the scribes and Pharisees, is condemned as useless. Inward
purity of heart, reaching to the motives and springs of action,
is the standard. The divine perfection, indeed, we must imitate.
When Jesus says, " Ye therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly
Father is perfect" (Matt. 5 : 48), he has especial reference
to the divine love. The entire Sermon on the Mount is an ex
position of the righteousness of the kingdom.

In Paul's writings there is frequent exhortation to consecration,
or sanctification in the sense of devotement to God. In Romans
12 : i Christians are enjoined to present their bodies as a "liv
ing sacrifice unto God." With this is to be combined the process
by which they are to be " transformed " in mind. Christians are
to reckon themselves dead to sin and alive unto God. (Rom.
6 : 1-12.)

The process of sanctification by which the inward state is to
correspond with the outward relation is expressed in various ways.

The Continuance of the Christian Life

Christians arc to " walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5 : 16, 25). They
are to " put off," as a garment, the " old man " and " put on,"
as a garment, "the new man" (Col. 3 : 9 if. ; Eph. 4 : 22-24).
Paul's desire is that the Thessalonians may become " unblamable
in holiness" (i Thess. 3 : 13; 5 : 23, 24). In Paul's writings
three things constantly appear: First, believers are sanctified
through their union with Christ. Every holy impulse arises
out of the fact that they are in Christ. Secondly, at every stage
and in every detail the Holy Spirit's work parallels that of
Christ in us. Christ in us, and the Spirit in us, are identical in
result. Thirdly, the result of " Christ in us " and the Spirit
in us is seen in ethical and spiritual transformation.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the thought always underlying
the argument is the new covenant and the ideal covenant rela
tion of men to God. In 9 : 13, 14 we read: "If the blood of
goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that
have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleansing of the flesh: how
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal
Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God." Here
probably the meaning is sanctification in the first sense of de-
votement to God. So also in 10 : 10 and in 10 : 14 the refer
ence is to the new relation to God under the new and perfect
covenant. Christians are sanctified by the perfect will of Christ,
and they are perfected forever by his one perfect offering. This
aspect of sanctification seems to be chiefly in view throughout
the Epistle. And yet in chapters IT, 12, and 13 the process of
purification and growth is set forth with many exhortations.

The apostle Peter combines both senses of the word in two
passages, i : 15, 16 and i : 22. In both these he combines a
reference to the gradual process with a reference to the initial
act. Since ye have purified your souls, see that ye live in accord
ance therewith.

In John's Epistles, sanctification is set forth in terms of strong
contrast. First, he declares that if a man claim to be without
sin, the truth is not in him. (i John i : 8.) And then he

[419]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

declares that if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father
(i John 2:1), implying clearly that we do commit sin. Again,
he declares that those who have the Christian hope purify them
selves as Christ is pure, (i John 3:3.) But in 3 : 6, 9 he
affirms in emphatic terms that if a man is born of God, God's
seed abideth in him and he sinneth not. These passages are
to be reconciled by remembering John's fondness for contrast.
He states opposing truths in extreme forms in order to emphasize
them. Fundamentally the Christian does not sin. In principle
he is devoted to righteousness. But this does not imply that
the principle is ideally operative, so that no detail of sin ever in
trudes into the Christian's conduct. John strongly insists that
there is a process of purification going on in the believer's heart
and life, and that through Christ he is victor over the sin principle.

(2) From this brief survey of the biblical teaching it appears
that sanctification is vitally related at several points to the initial
act by which we become Christians. It is related to faith because
in sanctification we constantly repeat the first act of trust. It
gradually becomes the habitual and normal attitude of the soul.
Faith is the condition of sanctification as of salvation in the first
instance. Sanctification is related to justification because in its
significance as setting apart or devotement to God, it corresponds
to the new status conferred upon us in God's justifying act.
Sanctification is related to regeneration because it is the unfold
ing of the new life germ implanted in regeneration. It is vitally
related to the work of the Holy Spirit because the entire process
is conducted by the Holy Spirit, who dwells in the believer and
gradually perfects his new moral character.

(3) Again, sanctification is attainment of moral character by
the Christian through struggle. In justification our faith is
reckoned to us for righteousness, but this is not the attainment
of righteousness by us. In regeneration also a new moral dis
position is imparted to us by the action of God's Spirit. But this
is not a righteousness achieved by us. In sanctification we work
out what God has wrought within us. We respond to that which
is, reckoned to us and react to that which is imparted to us. By

[420!

The Continuance of the Christian Life

repeated acts of our own wills, by repeated acts of holy choice,
by successive victories we are enabled by God's grace to achieve
the ideal. Thus our salvation is both a gift and a task. The
ability to perform the task is also a gift of grace. But it differs
from the initial gifts of grace in that our own moral and spir
itual strivings accompany it. We thus understand the exhorta
tion of Jesus to " strive " or agonize to " enter in " (Luke 13 :
24) ; and that of the apostle Paul, " Fight the good (that is,
the beautiful, kalon, the honorable, the noble) fight of faith "
(i Tim. 6 : 12). Thus also we understand Paul's graphic por
trayal of the Christian struggle in Ephesians. (6 : 10-18.) We
wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities
and powers, and the hosts of wickedness in heavenly places. In
sanctification the supreme task of attaining a divine holiness is
set for us. But in it is also pledged the gift of divine strength
to perform it.

The struggle necessary for the Christian arises from the op
position which he encounters from three sources. One is the
evil spiritual influences referred to in Ephesians 6 : loff. An
other is " the world," regarded as the sphere in which the evil
forces operate. Christians are commanded to love not the world,
nor the things of the world, because the world is opposed to the
divine life. This does not teach asceticism, nor the monastic life
of retirement from the daily occupations of men. It is rather
a command to overcome the evil influences of the world as subject
to false ideals and wrong standards, (i John 2 : 15-17.) The
third source of opposition is " the flesh." Here, again, we are
not to understand the material body as such. The Bible nowhere
regards matter as evil. By the flesh the New Testament means
the sinful nature or disposition which finds in the flesh its occa
sion and sphere of action. The phrases, " the carnal mind " and
the " mind of the flesh," show that the material body is not
meant. (See Rom. 7:8.) In Galatians 5 : 17 Paul declares that
the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the
flesh. Thus there are two principles at work in the Christian,
the lower of which is to be subdued and gradually destroyed by

[421]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the higher. It is an error to conceive of these " two natures "
of the Christian as if they were physical natures placed side by
[side like two material bodies which are wholly disconnected, so
that a man might excuse himself from responsibility for sin by
asserting, " It was not I that did it, but sin which dwells in
me." The Christian needs constantly to pray for forgiveness
because he is responsible. He is not two persons, but one. He
is not a Doctor Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, who act independently
of each other. He finds himself, although justified and regen
erated, still beset by the remnants of the *' old man." These he
must " put off " by repeated acts of the will until they pass away
entirely and he reaps the reward of conquest. He wins the
victor's crown. (Rev. 3 : n, 21; James r : 12.)

(4) It is evident from the preceding that sanctification is
gradual. It is not attained in its completeness by a single act
of consecration. Sanctification is a life process. It is necessarily
slow. In this it is unlike mechanical changes. The latter may be
very rapid. A material structure, by means of lumber and tools,
may be reared in a few days or weeks. But it requires genera
tions for nature to erect a great tree. The living organism
proceeds by imperceptible stages. So it is with the spiritual life.
Sanctification may be retarded by the negligence of the Christian.
He may backslide. All the contingencies and fluctuations of
an unsteady will enter into the problem. Discouragement and dis
appointment may arise because progress seems so slow. But
the chief point to remember is that the new inward spring of
action, the new principle of life and growth, is operative in the
regenerated man. All things are possible to him because a divine
force has been released in him. The life of Christ is his life.

There is no reason to suppose that Christian growth will ever
cease. At the resurrection the body will be perfectly sanctified,
and the spirit at death freed from sin. But as we are partakers
of the divine nature, and are to be conformed to the image of
Christ, the eternal Son, we have an endless vista of growth
opening before us. Christ is, as it were, a fleeing goal. We
possess him always, and yet there will always remain new heights

[422]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

of attainment in him. He ever goes before us to prepare a place
for us.

(5) The agent and means of sanctification call for a few state
ments. Always the agent is the Holy Spirit. This we have seen in
many previous connections, and need not dwell upon it here. It is
a truth never to be forgotten, however, and no one can understand,
much less propagate Christianity, who does not keep this funda
mental truth before him. The Christian life is a life in the Holy
Spirit, just as it is everywhere a life in Christ. Christ remains
throughout the object of faith. Our faith is directed toward him.
The Holy Spirit makes him real to our inner life and creates his
image in us.

The means or instrumentality of sanctification is chiefly the
truth of the gospel. Jesus' prayer shows this: "Sanctify them
through thy truth. Thy word is truth" (John 17 : 17). The
truth is learned through all the means of grace, in the church,
in preaching, in Christian fellowship, in temptation and trial, in
suffering, in Christian conquest, in the performance of daily
duty. In short, the whole circle of life's activities is to minister
to Christian growth. No part of life is to be regarded as outside
this circle of influences which God employs to purify and perfect
the Christian character.

2. The Moral Ideal

The moral ideal of sanctification is an important aspect of this
subject. What is the goal of Christian character? What kind
of men and women are we becoming as the process continues?
Of course a complete answer would involve the whole of Chris
tian ethics, and cannot be given exhaustively here. We can
only give it in brief outline. The New Testament teaching covers
the case of the Christian as an individual and as a member of
society. We consider these in their order.

(i) The ethical ideal of the Christian as an individual includes
the following. He accepts Christ as his Lord and as his guide in
all moral problems. (Matt. 7 : 15.) He hungers and thirsts

[423]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

after righteousness. (Matt. 5:6.) He is forgiving toward ene
mies. (Matt. 6 : 14, 15.) He seeks peace with all men. (Matt.
5:9.) He is not grasping for material wealth or covetous.
(Matt. 6 : 32-34.) He employs his wealth, if he possess it, as a
steward of the grace of God. (Luke 16 : 2; i Peter 4 : 10.)
He cultivates the spirit of contentment with outward conditions
and possessions. (Matt. 6 : 31.) He is discontented with present
moral and spiritual attainments. (Phil. 3 : 12, 13.) He prays
habitually, (i Thess. 5 : 17.) His chief concern in prayer and
in striving is for the coming of God's kingdom among men. (Matt.
6 : 10.) He is free from worry and anxiety about the future.
(Matt. 6 : 27.) He recognizes his entire dependence on God
and ever cultivates the spirit of dependence. (Phil. 4:6.) He
is not half-hearted, but whole-hearted in his devotion to God.
(Matt. 22 : 37.) He does not try to serve two masters. (Matt.
6 : 24.) He is faithful in the little as he is in the great things.
(Matt. 5 : 19; Luke 16 : 10.) He is cheerful in spirit, abound
ing in thanksgiving. (Col. 2 : 7.) His is not a life of depression
and gloom, but of triumph in Christ. (Phil. 2 : 18.) He is
diligent in business. (Rom. 12 : n.) His life is in the open,
not given to secret sins or shadowy pursuits of any kind. (Rom.
13 : 13.) He is stedfast in his Christian purpose. (Eph. 6 : 18.)
He purifies himself as Christ is pure, (i John 3 : 3.) He re
joices in the hope of the glory of God because the Holy Spirit is
shed abroad in his heart. (Rom. 5 : 3-5.) He is an imitator
of God as a beloved child, and walks in love. (Eph. 5 : i, 2.)
Thus the ideal and goal of the individual Christian life is sonship
to God modeled upon the sonship of Christ. (Eph. 5:2.)

(2) These are the salient features of the ethical side of sancti-
fication for the individual. We note next an outline of the ideal in
its social relations. There can be no question that Christianity
contemplates the purification of all social relations. The two
great conceptions expressing the social ideal in the New Testa
ment are the kingdom of God and the church. The kingdom
was both present and future. It was outward in some of its
manifestations, and also inward. It belonged to the sphere of

[ 424 ]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

history as well as to the sphere of the spiritual life. The church
was employed chiefly to designate the local assembly of believers.
But it was also used in the larger sense, including all the regen
erate. In the latter form it was not an outward organization.

Now our present purpose does not contemplate a discussion of
either church or kingdom in any of the controverted aspects
of these great themes. We refer to them here to show that these
were great social ideals in the mind of Jesus and of the New
Testament writers.

The Christian, then, was one in whom love was the ruling
motive. His first impulse was to become a member of the com
pany of believers. (Acts 2 : 47.) He recognized in them the
fellowship which corresponded to his own new life in Christ.
(Gal. 6 : 10.) In that fellowship he sought not his own things,
but the things of others, (i Cor. 10 : 24.) He practised for
bearance and forgiveness. He was long-suffering toward all.
(i Cor. 13 : 4, 7, 8.) He could forego a personal right in Christ
if by so doing he could help the weaker brother. (Rom. 14 : 1-7.)
He recognized the equality of all in Christ. (Col. 3 : n; Gal.
3 : 28.) For him there were no social castes, or distinctions,
based on false moral standards. He did not worship at the shrine
of wealth or power. (James 2 : 2-4; 5 : i.) He had no false
pride. (Rom. 12 : 3.) He employed whatever gift God bestowed
upon him for the edification of others. (Rom. 12 : 6ff.) He gave
of his means to relieve distress. (Rom. 12 : 13.) He returned
good for evil. (Rom. 12 : 20, 21.) He was especially devoted to
those of the household of faith. (Gal. 6 : 10.) He kept out of
debt and lived an honest life. (Rom. 13 : 8.) He was industrious
and would not become a burden to others, (i Thess. 4 : n.)
He avoided harsh judgments against others. (Rom. 14 : 3ff.) Of
course he avoided all the cardinal sins, such as lying and stealing
and adultery. (Rom. 13 : gff.) He regarded every Christian
as a brother in Christ. All were members of one body and mem
bers one of another. (Eph. 4 : 16.)

The teachings of the gospel of Christ deal directly or indirectly
with all the social institutions of men. The family was recog-

[ 425 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

nized as of divine origin. (Eph. 5 : 22.) One ground only is
recognized as justifying divorce. (Matt. 5 : 32.) The loyal obe
dience of children to parents and the training of children by
parents in the nurture and admonition of the Lord are insisted
upon as involved in the Christian obligation. (Eph. 6 : 1-4.)
Servants are to be treated justly by masters, and they are
to serve as in the Lord and not as pleasers of men. (Eph. 6 :
5-9.) The servant was a freeman in Christ, (i Cor. 7 : 21, 22.)
And while the New Testament does not expressly oppose human
slavery, it clearly sets forth principles which would in due time
destroy slavery. These principles were the liberty, equality, and
fraternity of men in Christ.

As to the state and civil government, there is clear recognition
of its function as a means for controlling and suppressing evil.
(Rom. 13 : 1-7.) No particular form of civil government is
recognized. But the principles of the gospel above mentioned
led inevitably toward the overthrow of every form of despotism
and of the so-called " divine right of kings." But the forces to
be employed by the gospel were spiritual rather than physical.
(2 Cor. 10 : 4.) The truth was to work as leaven in the hearts
of men. (Matt. 13 : 33.) Love and brotherhood in Christ are
the dynamic principles which are to change human governments
from despotisms to democracies. The Christian citizen is com
manded to render to the state its just dues. He is to perform
faithfully his duty to the state. (Matt. 22 : 21 ; Rom. 13 : 1-7.)

The same remarks apply to the institutions of society generally.
Economic and industrial problems are not discussed by Jesus or
the New Testament writers in their technical aspects. But it
is as clear as day that all forms of social wrong and injustice
are opposed to the ends of the gospel and the kingdom of God.
The kingdom of God is not meat and drink. It is not in its
essence a matter of material good things. It is rather " righteous
ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 14 : 17).
But if it is righteousness, it is necessarily opposed to every
form of unrighteousness. If it is peace, it is necessarily opposed
to the wrongs which disturb the peace. And if it is joy in the

[426]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

Holy Ghost, it is a joy arising out of Christian treatment of
others in equity and love.

Christianity emphasizes duties rather than rights. But it recog
nizes that every right is attended by a corresponding obligation.
Men are to cultivate the spirit of brotherhood. Thus will class
feeling, and race feeling, and narrow forms of patriotism die.
Thus will social and industrial disturbances gradually cease.
Equality of civil and political standing, and equality of economic
opportunity will inevitably follow.

The gospel is clearly opposed to the warlike spirit when that
spirit is based on any form of unrighteousness. It would be
going too far to say that Christianity is inconsistent or incom
patible with every form of war. There are forms of wrong
and oppression which only war can destroy. But the desire for
national greatness, based on the injury of other nations, is wholly
alien to the spirit of Christianity. Christ died for the human
race. And while national feeling and patriotic loyalty are not
opposed to the gospel, yet every form of such feeling which
forgets the rights of others is opposed to it. A narrow nation
alism which forgets other nations is an antichristian ideal.

j. Wrong Views as to Sanctification

There are two of these views. ( i ) One is the antinomian. Paul
encountered it and refuted it in the Epistle to the Romans. If
it is true, certain men argued, that where sin abounded grace
abounded more exceedingly, why should we not continue in sin in
order that grace may abound? Since our sin afforded grace its
opportunity, why not increase the opportunity of grace by abound
ing sin ?

Paul's answer is most conclusive. He reduces the plea of the
errorists to absurdity by three illustrations of the nature of the
Christian life. The first is that of spiritual death and resurrec
tion, symbolized by baptism, the initial act of outward obedience.
The Christian in his old sinful nature has been crucified, or put
to death, with Christ. He has also been raised from the dead into

[427]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

a new spiritual life in Christ. These truths find symbolic ex
pression in the outward act of baptism. (Rom. 6 : 1-14.) Hence,
the apostle concludes, it is absurd to propose continuance in sin
on account of grace, since the primary effect of grace is to
destroy sin.

His second illustration is the relation of slaves to the master.
Slaves obey their own master, not another. Christians were
formerly slaves of sin. Sin had dominion over them. But now,
as believers in Christ, they have changed masters. They are
now the slaves of righteousness. They are bound to obey their
new master and bring forth the corresponding fruit of righteous
ness. (Rom. 6 : 16-23.)

The third illustration is that of marriage. Christians were once
married to the law. But in Christ they became dead to the law.
They are now married to him. They were released from the
law as a means of justification and salvation just as a wife is
released from the marriage bond and is free to marry again by
the death of her husband. Believers have thus entered a new
spiritual relation to Christ. They are married to him, and can no
longer live as bound to the former husband. (Rom. 7 : 1-6.)
Briefly then, Paul's reply was that the antinomian claim was based
on a threefold absurdity, viz., that the Christian could live for
that to which he had become dead; that a slave could obey a
master to whom he does not belong; and that a wife could live
for one to whom she was not married.

The error of the antinomians was the beginning of that evil
tendency in theology which we have had so many occasions to
mention. It was the error of taking a part for the whole. It
was analytical thought trying to separate things which were in-
dissolubly one. They conceived of salvation as a merely com
mercial transaction, or outward transfer, of Christ's merits to
us and our sins to him. They overlooked the fact that it is a
moral and spiritual union of men with Christ, in which the out
ward command was written on the heart as an inner life prin
ciple ; that there was a radical break with sin and a living union
with Christ, in which the Christian shares Christ's passion for

[428]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

holy living and his abiding fellowship with God; and that the
freedom from the law which Christ secures for us is not a free
dom to break the law, but, by the new spiritual powers im
planted in us, a freedom to obey it.

(2) The other wrong view is that of the perfectionist. It is
held by some that in the present life the Christian may attain sin
less perfection. There are certain Scriptures which seem to teach
it, such as the following: " Ye therefore shall be perfect as your
heavenly Father is perfect " (Matt. 5 : 48). " Ye shall be holy,
for I am holy" (i Peter i : 16). " Let us press on unto per
fection" (Heb. 6 : i). "Let us therefore, as many as are
perfect, be thus minded " (Phil. 3:15). " That ye may be per
fect and entire, lacking in nothing" (James 1:4). ''Ye were
sanctified" (i Cor. 6 : n). "That we should be holy and
without blemish before him in love " (Eph. 1:4).

We must reject the view, however, that sinless perfection is at
tainable in the present life. There are many reasons in support
of this rejection.

a. Sinless perfection in this life involves attainment of a divine
ideal by a body and soul maimed by sin. Such attainment is
impossible. The body bears the marks of sin in many ways, and
it is to be freed from them only at the resurrection. In the
present life the soul, even though regenerate, is bound to a body
thus weakened and tainted by evil, and cannot wholly escape the
consequences of its union with the body of our humiliation. A
converted drunkard said that he had found that while his desire
for liquor was gone, his appetite for it remained. The appetite
was the physical craving. The new moral desire was the result
of the Holy Spirit's regenerating power. His new spiritual life
was victorious over appetite. But his physical organism still
bore the marks of his old sinful life.

b. No Christian can at any stage apply to himself an absolute
standard of holiness. He may know that he grows, that he is
better than he once was, that a divine power is working in him.
There is a form of relative judgment which he can pronounce
upon himself. But his self-criticism can never compass all the

[420!

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

workings of his own nature even by the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Motives are too complex, attainments too variable and unstable,
downward tendencies too constant for him to apply to himself
the standard of the divinely perfect law in any absolute sense.
When he attempts to do so and claims perfection, he always
lowers the law. We might reach the stars if the stars would only
come down within our reach.

c. Christian experience testifies against the idea of sinless
perfection in this life. The greatest saints of history confessed
their sins throughout their careers. Augustine is a notable ex
ample. The apostle Paul never ceased to battle against himself.
He buffeted his body and kept it under because the old sinful
self kept renewing its attack upon him. Sin is catlike in the
proverbial sense that it has many lives. The sense of sin on the
part of great saints is easily explained. Their deepening insight
into the law of holiness enabled them to discern their own sins as
well. The supernal light intensified the inward lines of blackness

d. The Scriptures afford no real basis for the theory of sin
less perfection. The passages cited in support of it can be ex
plained otherwise. Other passages show clearly the erroneous-
ness of the view. In some cases commands or ideals or prophecies
of perfection are confounded with attainment. Christianity never
sets a low standard, but always the highest. We are to strive
for perfection as God is perfect, and for holiness as God is
holy. Many of the passages cited simply set forth the ideal of
perfection toward which we are to strive. In other cases where
the past is referred to, as in the passage, " Ye were sanctified "
(i Cor. 6 : n), there is no reference to sinless perfection. The
Epistle is addressed to very imperfect Christians. " Sanctified "
here means set apart to God's service, devoted to God, and not
sinless purity of thought and life. So also may be explained
all the passages.

Besides these there are many which expressly contradict the
theory. There are passages in the Old Testament. But two or
three in the New will suffice. In James 3 : 2 it is declared
that " in many things we all stumble." And in i John I : 8 the

[ 430 1

The Continuance of the Christian Life

very emphatic word appears, "If we say we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

e. The biblical use of the word perfect and the idea of per
fection leads to the same conclusion. In the Old Testament the
covenant relation between Israel and God is always assumed.
A man might walk with " a perfect heart " before Jehovah, or
live a blameless or harmless life within the covenant without at
all attaining sinlessness. He might perform the outward duties
of the covenant thus. But sinless perfection in the sense we
are considering was remote from his thoughts.

So also a man might be a man of uprightness or integrity
according to the standards of the period, and so be called a per
fect man. This seems to be the usage in the book of Job. (Job

1 : i; Gen. 6:9.) Sometimes perfect meant simply complete
in all the parts, as of animals offered in sacrifice.

Frequently in the New Testament the word perfect means
mature (tcleios). Full-grown men are perfect in the sense of
mature as contrasted with babes in Christ. (Heb. 5 : 14; I Cor.

2 : 6; Phil. 3 : 15.)

In Philippians 3 : 2-16 we have a most illuminating passage on
the subject of Christian perfection. Paul is describing his own
Christian struggles. The outstanding mark of his experience is
that he had not yet attained, or laid hold of, that for which Christ
laid hold of him. His one aim is to press on toward the mark,
or Christian goal. Then he adds two significant statements.
The first is that " the perfect " are " thus minded." Here, then,
is a paradox. The mature or perfect Christian is the Christian
who has a sense of his own imperfection. To reach a conscious
ness of having attained would be a spiritual decline. It would be
self-deception. The apostle also adds, " Nevertheless, whereto
we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us
mind the same thing" (Phil. 3 : 16). This means, Let us con
scientiously perform every known duty. Let us live up to the
truth as we know it, while yet deeply conscious of our failure
to attain the divine ideal.

From the preceding discussion of perfection we conclude :

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

First, that sinless perfection is never attainable in the present
life. Secondly, that it is possible for Christians to make steady
progress toward the goal of perfection. Thirdly, there is danger
that we may mistake the attainment of some stages of the Chris
tian life for the attainment of perfection. We may attain to
Christian assurance, but this is not sinlessness. We may have
a so-called " second blessing/' in which we make rapid spiritual
progress. But this is not perfection. We ought to have a third,
and a fourth, and a thousand more blessings. Fourthly, there is
danger that in our opposition to the false theory of perfectionism
we will adopt low standards of Christian living and excuse our
selves for sin and worldliness. This is an insistent peril we
should recognize. Dr. A. J. Gordon says : 1 "If the doctrine of
sinless perfection is a heresy, the doctrine of contentment with
sinful imperfection is a greater heresy. It is not an edifying
spectacle to see a Christian worldling throwing stones at a Chris
tian perfectionist/' The fifth conclusion is that while ever con
scious of our imperfection, we should believe in the possibility
of great attainment in the Christian life, both in character and in
power for service. Sometimes there are great acts of consecra
tion involving complete surrender of the will, a renewed filling
of the Holy Spirit, so that in a moment we pass to a higher stage
of spiritual victory and power. But this should not be taken as
final, nor lead to self-deception. Steady, plodding labor and
growth should succeed it, not contentment. We should, after
the greatest blessing, still press on toward the mark of the high
calling of God in Christ.

II. PERSEVERANCE

The subject of perseverance gives rise to the question as to the
certainty of the ultimate salvation of believers. Will they,
without fail, endure to the end, or are we to hold that some may
fall away from their saving faith in Christ and perish?

i. Before answering this question directly it will be well to

1 " Ministry of the Spirit," p. 116.

[432]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

consider briefly two tendencies in theological thought in the past
which have led to wrong inferences concerning the doctrine. One
has been the tendency of extreme Calvinists. They have put
great emphasis upon the logic of the " plan of salvation." God's
predestination and election of individuals to salvation takes the
whole problem out of human hands entirely. That purpose must
find expression in God's justifying act when he accepts men in
Christ, and in his regenerating act when he imparts the new
nature. Now God's eternal purpose cannot be changed. His act
of justification cannot be annulled. Man's new nature is an
indelible and radical transformation, a work which only God
can undo. Therefore all the regenerate must be ultimately saved,
or else God's purpose fails and his work comes to naught.

Now it is not denied that some such mode of logical de
duction may be applied to the general statements of the New
Testament. But it is doubtful whether it represents adequately
the prevailing point of view which is found therein. The New
Testament writers rarely indulge in formal logic after this fashion.
The particular combination of ideas would be hard to find in
any one paragraph in isolation from other teachings. The chief
objection to this logic is that it is abstract and partial. It omits
other very necessary teachings which supplement those on which
the reasoning is based. It tends to make of salvation a physical
rather than a moral and spiritual process. It so emphasizes the
absoluteness of God that it tends to pantheism. The human
response and effort are ignored. In all the New Testament
writers there is great care exercised to supplement logical infer
ences of this kind by the corresponding truth of human perse
verance.

Another school of theologians have exalted human freedom in
the same one-sided way. The Christian is free to continue in
grace or fall away from it. He may have God's help if he will,
but ultimately his destiny is in his own hands. If he is finally lost
he, and he only, is responsible. Now this statement of the case
is also partial, and fails to take account of vital teachings of
Scripture and vital elements of experience. It does not recog-

c 2 [ 433 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

nize the fulness and sufficiency of divine grace. It tends to a bare
moralism in which human effort is everything, and to a deism
which puts God above men and apart from their struggles.

2. Now the New Testament avoids the pantheistic tendency
of extreme Calvinism and the deistic tendency of the extreme
Arminianism. The New Testament teaching and Christian ex
perience are completely one in keeping the divine and human
aspects properly related to each other. In both there is clear
recognition of God's initiative. The shepherd seeks the lost sheep.
This is Jesus' declaration. The saved man knows he is found,
laid hold of, apprehended by Christ. So Paul testifies. Again,
the lost is not merely found; he is more than a sheep. He is a
prodigal in a far country who must repent. So the New Testa
ment teaches. The saved knows by experience that he was only
found in the saving meaning of the word when he repented of
his sins and responded to the seeking love. Both these elements
enter at every stage of the Christian life. We are commanded
to work out our own salvation, not apart from God, but because
it is God who works in us to will and to do. (Phil. 2 : 12.)

The true doctrine of perseverance, then, is to be found by
combining into a unity the groups of teachings which have been
employed to support contradictory views. We cite a few of
those on both sides of the controversy and then show how they
are to be combined.

We note first those which emphasize God's power and grace.
In John 10 : 28, 29 Jesus declares that his sheep shall never
perish ; that no one can pluck them out of his hand ; that no one
can pluck them out of God's hand. In Romans 8 : 30 Paul com
bines predestination, calling, justification, and glorification in a
description of the Christian life, and in verses 35-39 he de
clares that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ.
Again, in Romans n : 29 he asserts that the gifts and calling
of God are without repentance. In Philippians I : 6 the apostle
declares that he who began a good work in his readers would per
fect it unto the day of Jesus Christ. In 2 Timothy I : 12 he
knows whom he has believed and is assured that he is able to

[434]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

keep that which he has committed unto him. In i Peter i : 5
we are said to be guarded by God's power unto a salvation to be
revealed at the last day.

There is another group of passages which seem to indicate
the possibility of falling away and being lost. Paul says con
cerning his own struggles : " I buffet my body and bring it into
bondage ; lest by any means after that I have preached to others,
I myself should be rejected " (i Cor. 9 : 27). Again, in Hebrews
6 : 4-6 : " For as touching those who were once enlightened and
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the
Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of
the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew
them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves
the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." There
are numerous other passages of like import. It is not necessary
to consider all of them in detail. These two will serve to illus
trate the principles of interpretation which apply to the alleged
apostasy passages generally.

The following statements may be made : There is expressed in
these passages a sense of real danger. As Paul and the writer of
Hebrews regarded the variable devotion and infirmities and sins
of men, they trembled for the outcome. We are therefore not
justified in explaining away the obvious meaning and in saying
that the passages are designed to teach something else. Men are
free beings. God deals with them as such. They are in real
danger of abusing this freedom and presuming upon God's grace
in Christ. We may add, in the second place, however, that the
writers are here dealing with principles and spiritual attitudes
rather than writing history. These are not accounts of things
which occurred, but of real dangers. Looked at from the stand
point of human weakness, they may occur. There is, however,
another factor to be reckoned with, God's grace. Elsewhere this
is made clear. But the biblical writers did not hesitate to
deal with the human factor alone if necessary. Hence the
warnings, entreaties, threats, and importunities which we find
addressed to God's true people. As free moral beings, as persons,

[435]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

they can only be reached and influenced and held to the Christian
ideal in this way.

There are also Scriptures which put great emphasis upon
human effort in salvation without expressing any view as to the
possibility of falling away. In Acts 2 : 40 we read, " And with
many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save
yourselves from this crooked generation." Now it is possible
to hold and state the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith
in a manner so partial and one-sided that it would be difficult
to harmonize it with this language of the apostle Peter. And yet
if each is properly understood in its relations to the other side of
the truth, there is no contradiction. In fact, neither truth can
be understood apart from the other.

Again, Paul says to the Philippians: " Work out your own sal
vation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in
you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure " (Phil. 2:12,
13). Here we have both sides of the truth presented in close con
nection with each other. For the apostle Paul there was no
contradiction between the idea of an inworking of divine grace
in the heart on the one side, and a free response and active co
operation of man on the other. In fact, the two were indis-
solubly bound together. There is of course an ultimate mystery
involved when we enter the realm of metaphysics as to the human
will in relation to the will of God. But in the sphere of our ex
periential knowledge of God's grace and power there was no
insuperable difficulty.

From the preceding we may derive the following conclusions :
First, the writers of the New Testament seem to imply by their
exhortations and warnings that all believers if left to themselves
are in real danger of falling away; and secondly, that God
purposes and preserves men unto salvation, though this is not
a process regardless of man's conduct, but a process involv
ing man's active response to God's gracious working; and
thirdly, that it is unscriptural and wrong to ignore either the
divine purpose and grace and power on the one hand, or the
human response and cooperation on the other. Ultimately of

[436]

The Continuance of the Christian Life

course the decisive factor is God's grace and power, not man's
weakness. Through that grace and power man is enabled to
overcome.

3. Here, again, we discover that God's method is moral and per
sonal and not physical. He does not preserve us by irresistible
grace as by something which overrides our will ; but by constrain
ing grace which enlists our will. He does not preserve us in
spite of transgressions and backslidings, but by renewing us unto
repentance for sins and return from backslidings. His method
is not that of the pantheistic view in which God's will is every
thing and man's nothing. Nor is it the method of the deistic view
which exalts the human will to the chief place and reduces that
of God to the minimum. It is the method rather which is in
harmony with Christian theism. The personal God deals with per
sonal man in a free personal manner. He is transcendent, but he
is also immanent in man through the indwelling Holy Spirit work
ing toward the goal of Christian character. He is immanent in
the world, working therein providentially in behalf of his child.
The result is not uncertain. But the certainty is not that of a
mechanical law working through natural forces. It is the cer
tainty of moral suasion and spiritual influence exerted in a per
sonal way. The method involves the highest possible form of
parental training and discipline. There are two methods of pre
venting danger to a child playing near a precipice. The father
may build a wall to prevent the child from falling over, or leave
the danger, and build up the child's will and self-control and
thus enable him to avoid the danger. The father might remain
near to meet an emergency should it arise, and yet so discipline
the child that the emergency would rarely arise. The latter is
God's method. He does not build walls so much as he builds
wills ; although he builds walls where they are required by his
higher method. A lady sent her little boy across a dangerous,
crowded street to do an errand. A friend expressed fear lest
he be injured by the passing vehicles. The mother replied that
there was no danger, that the child had been trained to avoid the
danger. Most mothers would have towed the child across the

[ 437 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

street by the hand. This mother trained hers to cross it alone.
God's method is not the towing but the training method.

Now the above exposition explains a number of passages and
relieves a number of difficulties. It explains the unmistakable
Scriptures, wherein it is clearly taught that no one in Christ
will ever be lost. It also explains the passages which seem to
imply that some are in danger of being lost. These are exhorta
tions to prevent the danger which is real from the human stand
point. To point out the danger and warn against it is the divine
method of preventing it. It explains also cases of apparent apos
tasy in the Bible. These were either cases of backsliding which
were followed by a return to God, or else they were cases of
spurious conversion where the real spiritual life never existed.
The exposition meets the objection that the divine is inconsistent
with human freedom. It does so by showing in the strongest
way the necessity of man's free response to and cooperation
with God. It meets also the objection that the doctrine of per
severance tends to immorality since it assures men of salvation
no matter how they live. Our exposition meets this objection by
showing that living a moral and consistent life is the only con
sistent result of the operation of God's will to preserve us to the
end. We may close this subject with the words of the apostle
Paul : " Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? Shall
tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness,
or peril, or sword ? . . Nay, in all these things we are more
than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded
that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor
things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor
depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord " (Rom.
8 : 35-39).

[ 438 ]

CHAPTER XVII
LAST THINGS

I. CYCLE OF IDEAS COMPLETED

^j^SCHATOLOGY, or the doctrine of last things, will com-
*lf ' plete our cycle of biblical ideas. This treatise has dealt
r with the Christian religion in its doctrinal expression. The
aim has been to construe the Christian's religious life to the Chris
tian intelligence. Eschatology is a logical and necessary part of
this aim as we shall now proceed to indicate.

Looking at the gospel from the divine side, we may say it is
God's communication to us. Looking at it from the human side,
we may say it is man's appropriation of what God communicates.
Thus the gospel is revelation and salvation. We may sum up, in
a few brief statements, the communicative and the appropriative
elements in our redemption through Christ. First, God is made
known to us as the Creator of the world and its providential
Guide. On our side it is the recognition of his initiative in sal
vation and his presence in human history and the individual life.
Secondly, God is revealed as transcendent. He is above and
greater than the world; yet he is the immanent God, entering it
and dwelling in our hearts by his Holy Spirit, to whom we
gladly respond by faith. Thirdly, God is eternally Father, who
speaks to men in and through Jesus Christ his eternal Son. We
receive Christ as God's Son, who came for our salvation, and the
spirit of sonship is given unto us whereby we cry, " Abba,
Father." Thus the Son, who is the historic revelation of the eter
nal God, becomes the inward principle of our spiritual life. As
Paul expressed it, God reveals his Son in us. Fourthly, the
atonement of Christ was God's expression of his infinite love
for lost men, and the means for their reconciliation to God. The
experiential response of men to this atonement is the turning
away from sin, a being crucified with Christ, a dying to sin. The

[ 439 I

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

cross becomes the symbol of our new relation to sin and God.
Fifthly, the resurrection of Christ is the consummation of God's
redemptive work through him. Our experiential response is in
yielding ourselves to his regenerating grace and in being spiritually
raised from the dead by an inward renewal through the Holy
Spirit. Sixthly, God's gracious act in justifying us and setting
us apart to his service in sanctification is responded to by us
in the practical life of obedience which answers to the divine act.
And his eternal purpose to preserve us to the end is responded
to by us in the cooperation of our wills with his own and in a
recognition of the peril to which we are exposed apart from his
grace and power. Thus we are ever mindful of our dependence
upon God. Our dependence expresses itself in constant prayer to
him, coupled with full assurance of his love in Christ and of
Christ's intercession for us at God's right hand.

Now it is clear from this summary that God's working in history
and grace is purposive. It moves toward a goal. It is this tele
ology or purposiveness of history and of Christian experience
which raises the questions about the last things. The Christian
salvation is the process of realization. It looks forward to the
stages which are implied in the present imperfect stage, and it
looks backward to the historic origins. The moment we con
nect the past with the present, as we must do, we are confronted
with the problem of the future. No beginning or partial attain
ment gives an adequate explanation of a great evolving process.
We know beginnings fully only by endings. The implicit elements
must become explicit before we can understand. So also we can
fully understand the kingdom of God only in its outcome. The
Scripture has not left us in the dark. It has not answered our
many curious questions, but it has given us a satisfying forecast
of the future in its main outlines.

II. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

Before presenting the New Testament outline of the future,
there are certain preliminary questions which call for attention,

[44°]

Last Things

These arise in part out of the attitude of modern thought, and in
part out of the character of the New Testament teachings.

i. The first question is this: Can we not dispense with a doc
trine as to the future? There are some who assert that we do
not need such a teaching. Various grounds are set forth in sup
port of the assertion. With one group immortality is denied or
declared to be unimportant as a belief because it cannot be scien
tifically demonstrated. The methods of physical science are ap
plied to religious beliefs. On this basis, of course, no proof of
immortality which compels assent, as in mathematical demon
stration, is possible. This group is composed chiefly of physical
scientists, whose interest in religion is subordinate to the demands
of their particular province of investigation. Another group,
made up of theologians, insist that the future is irrelevant to
our faith and lies outside the realm of knowledge. With these it
is not so much a denial of immortality as of the possibility of a
doctrine of immortality. Their view is based also on a theory
of knowledge. They limit the knowable to the facts of present
experience. Another group argue against immortality on the
ground that it is injurious to ethics. It is alleged that the doctrine
of future rewards and punishments is essentially selfish in its
appeal. A man should do right because it is right, not because
he will be rewarded for it. Devotion to right for its own sake is
urged. In the case of others denial of individual immortality is
based on philosophic grounds. The advocates of certain forms
of idealism and pantheism insist that all finite forms of existence,
including man's individual life, will in due time be swallowed up
in the infinite. Thus the only immortality men may expect is
that of reabsorption in the universal life. Some hold that the
present form of belief in immortality is that of influence over
other lives in the future. As individuals we perish, but we live
in the influence we exert after death. It is even alleged that the
Old Testament proves that man's religious life does not require
belief in personal immortality. In Israel the hope of men was
bound up in that of the family and nation, with little emphasis or
recognition of individual immortality.

[ 441 :i

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Now we have in a previous section set forth the general argu
ments for the immortality of the soul. These do not need to
be repeated here. But a few things may be said in reply to the
forms of teaching we Have just outlined.

(1) We begin with the argument based upon the teaching of
the Old Testament. It is incorrect to say that the religion of
Israel proves that a doctrine of immortality is unnecessary. In
its earlier stages the nation was so absorbed in the present, and
the individual was so lost in the people as a whole that the hope
of the future took the form of a national hope. This we concede.
But this is by no means a sufficient account of the matter. The
later literature of the Old Testament presents another phase of
the belief. When trouble and disaster overtook the individual,
and especially when the nation was broken up by captivity,
the Old Testament believer reached the conviction of indi
vidual conquest of death and of immortality. These wrere never
denied, even in the earlier stages. But they became very ex
plicit in certain experiences which tried the earlier belief as
by fire. One needs only to read the Sixteenth, the Seven
teenth, the Forty-ninth, the Sixty-eighth, the Seventy-third
Psalms ; the nineteenth chapter of the book of Job ; the sixth
chapter of Hosea ; the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth chapters of
Isaiah, and other Old Testament teachings to see how the doc
trine of immortality and even resurrection of the body took
shape through the experience of God's grace in the midst of suf
fering and trial. We conclude, then, that the Old Testament
taken as a whole, and not in its earlier stages merely, proves the
insufficiency of the belief in an immortality of influence or sur
vival in the national life. Men are no doubt swayed much by
the hope of influence upon future generations. But this does not
and cannot take the place of the hope of immortality in the proper
sense of the word.

(2) The idealistic and pantheistic denials of immortality are
met by the general arguments which show the weakness of these
systems as a whole. If God is a personal and purposive Being,
and if man is made in his image as a free moral personality, the

[442]

Last Things

belief in personal immortality is the strongest of all inferences
from the facts. On the assumption that the world-ground is
not a Person, but an impersonal principle, man and his whole
moral and religious life are an enigma which cannot be ex
plained. The stream has in that case risen higher than its source.
We have an effect without a cause. If the world rises by slow
degrees to its climax in human personality and its deep convic
tion of survival after death, as Christian theism holds, we have
a self -consistent world-view. But if man perishes, if his moral
and spiritual and personal life is merely a passing phase of a
world of endless change, then the alleged climax becomes a
shocking and inexplicable anticlimax.

(3) The denial which is based on objection to the idea of
rewards and punishments is the result of an immature considera
tion of the problem. It is but another instance of the abstract
and analytical method leading to a wrong conclusion. The facts
of man's nature, as they are presented in universal experience,
show this. We cannot, if we would, detach ourselves from the
thought of the past on the one hand, and from that of the future
on the other. In other words, time is a factor of consciousness
of which we cannot divest ourselves. Memory and hope are part
of the warp and woof of all our thinking in all spheres, in re
ligion and ethics as well as in practical secular life. The kind of
being who can, by an act of will, exclude all thought of past and
future, does not exist, at least not in human form. Such a being
would be so wanting in motives and ends that we can scarcely
conceive of him as a finite personal being at all. The idea of
rewards and penalties is inwrought in our moral nature. Con
science clearly witnesses to this fact. To ignore this witness is
to ignore one of the chief functions of our nature.

There is of course always a danger that rewards and penalties
may be presented on a low moral level. The Mohammedan heaven
appeals to the lower instincts in men. Sometimes the Christian
appeal lacks elevation when made by those who fail to appre
ciate the morality of the gospel. But the remedy is not in at
tempting to destroy the idea altogether, but in making reward and

[ 443 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

penalty harmonize with the type of character which the Chris
tian religion seeks to produce. Christian character in its highest
form is indeed the instinctive and persevering choice of the
highest moral good from an inward impulse, and not from ex
ternal constraint. It is also true that no man can attain his
character from exclusive regard for future rewards and penalties.
There is joy and spontaneity in service. But the thought of the
ultimate outcome is no small factor in producing spontaneous and
joyous devotion to the moral and spiritual ideal.

(4) The denial of immortality based on scientific grounds,
and the corresponding theological denial arising out of a theory
of knowledge derived from physical science, may be met in
several ways. First, we remark that physical science and its
methods of proof do not apply to spiritual phenomena. The soul
and its life are outside of the range of physical science. Psy-
chophysics, or the study of the facts of consciousness in relation
to the brain and nervous system, has no word to say against
belief in immortality. There is a parallelism between brain ac
tivities and those of the mental life. But they never pass into
each other. The law of continuity fails to explain their connec
tion. Secondly, the quality of the life in Christ is its own best
evidence to the Christian himself. It is a life of communion, of
fellowship with God. The Spirit of God acts upon his spirit.
His life has an eternal quality. In the words of Jesus, it is
" eternal life." It partakes of the quality of God's life. It is
progressive. Nothing in the present life fully satisfies it. It
moves ever toward a freer, more complete life. In the third
place, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the great historic fact
which brings the whole question of the future into the realm of
fact. It ceases thus to be a merely speculative question. If now
we combine the second and third points we find that a doctrine of
last things is not only required by the experience of Christians,
but also by the triumph of Christ himself over death. Hence we
are not surprised that the New Testament has devoted much
space to teachings about the outcome of the kingdom of God
in the future.

f444l

Last Things

2. The second preliminary question is : " What were the sources
of the eschatological teachings of Jesus?" Here, of course, we
recognize the originality of Jesus in giving a moral and spiritual
content to the doctrine of last things which sets him immeasurably
apart from his contemporaries. But here, as in all the other
teachings of Jesus, he found a point of vital contact with his age.
There were at least two sources whence the form and general
outline of his doctrine are derived.

( i ) The first we name is the Old Testament. It is not possible
to trace in detail these Old Testament elements. It is indeed not
necessary. The main facts are generally recognized. The great
underlying conception in the Old Testament life and teaching
was God's reign over his people Israel. He was in covenant
relations with them. He had a glorious purpose to achieve
through them. The pictures of the future which the Old Testa
ment prophets held up to the gaze of the people varied with
the circumstances and the needs. But there are certain great out
standing features which constantly recurred, especially in the
later history.

The first great ideal for the future was the coming of God's
perfected kingdom on earth. God is to establish his rule among
men. The period of the kingdom of Israel under David and
Solomon is conceived of as the typical period of the past. Some
times God's reign over Israel is portrayed. In the later prophets
Israel's mission to the world, and a kingdom which embraces all
nations, looms large in the future. Descriptions of the coming
kingdom are sometimes given in highly poetic language. Super
natural elements appear. God dwells with men. Jerusalem is
the center of government. (See Isa. 2:2.)

Another great event of the future is the coming of the " Day
of the Lord." Here, again, there is much variation in the form
of statement. Sometimes it is a day of calamity, of thick dark
ness. At other times it is a day of glory and triumph. " The
Day " seemed to some of the prophets to be ever impending. It
was very near, and was about to burst upon the world. And yet
at other times it seemed to be in the distant future. It was not

[4451

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

necessarily a literal day of twenty-four hours, but a period of
divine manifestation and power. (See Isa. 2 : 12, 17, 20; 61 :
2; Mai. 3 : 2,3.)

Another element of the portrayal of the future was the judg
ment. This was not so much the great day of final judgment of
mankind as it was the judgment of Israel for its sins, or of the
nations of the world, or of both. Judgment was in connection
with the " Day of the Lord." Jehovah would punish the nations
and deliver Israel. At other times he punishes Israel and finally
redeems the nation and establishes it under his own beneficent
reign. (See Mai. 3 : 2, 3; Joel 2 : 28-32.)

Another great figure of the future is the Messiah. There are
many passages which have a Messianic import. But here again
the form of representation varies. The most constant form of
portrayal is that of the King descended from David. He is the
branch out of the stock of Jesse. Usually he is a great con
queror. He reigns in glory. Sometimes God rules in the coming
kingdom. But when Messiah reigns, it is also God's reign. The
Messianic King is identified with God. God reigns in and
through him. Sometimes, especially in the fifty-second and fifty-
third chapters of Isaiah, he is represented as a sufferer. He
bears the penalty of the people's sins. He is the Servant of
Jehovah. He is Jehovah's prophet to the nations. There has
been much controversy over the question whether the suffering
Servant in Isaiah is the righteous remnant of the people, or an
individual Messiah. The truth seems to be that the prophet
passed through the usual stages of experience here, and was
gradually led to the higher truth. There are passages which seem
best explained by reference to " the remnant." There are others
which require application to an individual. The righteous rem
nant of Israel was the nucleus of the prophet's thought. The
Messianic conviction, which was a fixed prophetic idea, came to
his aid. There is something wonderfully striking and bold in
the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, where a human victim becomes
a vicarious offering for sin, possessing redemptive efficacy for
others. (See Isa. 53 : 4-11.)

[446]

Last Things

In general the eschatology of the Old Testament refers to this
world. The events portrayed were to take place on earth, al
though there are supernatural elements mingled in some of the
prophecies. But along with this general teaching, as we have
seen, there was the gradual rise of a clear conviction of the
resurrection. One peculiarity of this belief in the resurrection
is worthy of special emphasis. It brings into prominence the
character of the Old Testament religion. The peculiarity is that
is was chiefly the product of religious experience under the
guidance of God's Spirit. In the earlier stages the Old Testa
ment revelation presents a people who shared the common be
liefs of the nations as to the future. The Greek and Babylonian
beliefs and those of other nations, as to the life after death,
were vague. So also were those of the Old Testament. There
was no denial of continued existence. There is no teaching in
the Old Testament to justify belief in annihilation or transmigra
tion of souls. But Sheol was a shadowy realm. In it men were
still conscious. But they were cut off from fellowship with men.
It was regarded as involving a meager and attenuated existence.
It was contemplated with misgiving and dread. Hence the
emphasis upon the present life of fellowship with God. This
is the supreme good. Now it was the experience of this fel
lowship under the influence of God's Spirit which was the basis
of the conviction of the resurrection. In other words, the resur
rection was a religious necessity. God will not forsake his ser
vant, even in death. The passionate yearning for continued fel
lowship with Jehovah under the spur of trial and suffering led
to the conviction. This comes out with special clearness in the
case of Job. It also appears in several of the psalms. Thus it
appears that the Old Testament doctrine of the resurrection did
not arise out of the arguments and speculations of philosophers.
It was not a theoretical belief. It arose out of the practical
needs of the religious life. In Isaiah and Daniel the resurrection
of the individual comes into very clear expression.

It cannot be said that the Old Testament Doctrine of last things
presents a complete or final picture of the future. It does not

[447]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

present a definite order of events which can be traced with ac
curacy. The language is often figurative and highly poetical.
Widely separated events are often seen in their moral rather
than their chronological sequence. Mountain peaks of the future,
which are far apart, are seen in a perspective which brings them
close together. There are, however, great outstanding features
in the Old Testament eschatology. a. God is working in his
tory with a purpose. He is moving toward a goal. b. Israel is
the instrument and medium of his grace, c. His purpose ex
tends to all mankind, d. He will interpose in judgment and in
blessing in due time. e. He will send a Deliverer, who shall
carry into effect his mighty purpose. /. By his grace, death
and the grave will be conquered, g. His eternal kingdom shall
triumph over all other forces of earth. No nation has ever
equaled Israel, in their optimism. None has ever held so glorious
a vision of the future. They not only held a Messianic belief.
They were a Messianic people.

(2) A second influence to be mentioned in connection with the
Xew Testament doctrine of last things is the Jewish eschatology
of the New Testament times. Jesus came into the atmosphere of
an age which was keenly alive to the problem of Israel's future.
The Messianic hope took the form of a political restoration of
the Jewish state, and at times it took the form of an apocalyptic
intervention of God in the world and the setting up of his eternal
kingdom. It does not fall within our purpose to give these
teachings as they appear in the non-canonical Jewish literature.
There are many and varied portrayals of the future in this col
lection of writings. In the books of Enoch, First and Second
Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, the Assumption of Moses, and various
others the Messianic expectations of the Jews are set forth.
The elements which we have found in the Old Testament are re
produced here, along with various additions. In some cases the
future is portrayed in most extravagant terms of material pros
perity. Israel comes to her own in power and influence. The
Messianic hope is at length realized. The glory of Jehovah is
given to his people. God's eternal kingdom is established.

[448]

Last Things

Now the mention of this non-canonical eschatological literature
is with a view to emphasizing the fact that the messages of Jesus
came to a people who were already alive to the Messianic ex
pectation. Current forms of belief are presupposed in many
of his own teachings. He set aside many elements of existing
belief. He purified and transformed them, even when he ac
cepted in part what they contained. His treatment of all of them
was free and authoritative.

3. Our third preliminary question relates to the distinction
between the form and the substance of the eschatology of the
New Testament. Can we dispense with the outward form and
hold the inner content ? Can we cast aside the shell and keep the
kernel? This general question is apart from the problems of
exegesis which we encounter in dealing with the language of
Jesus. Some hold that we may dispense with all^the elements of
the eschatalogy, except certain great central spiritual teachings.
They view with suspicion the catastrophic and apocalyptic order
of events, such as the Second Coming, the Resurrection, and
Judgment. These are to be taken not literally, it is urged, but
spiritually. The Second Coming means in its essence the triumph
of God's kingdom. The Resurrection means, in principle, that
we shall triumph spiritually over death. The Judgment means
not an event in history, but that men will be rewarded or punished
according to their deeds. It is held that these spiritual truths
cover the ground and meet all our needs as to the future; that
the language in which these hopes are set forth is not to be
taken literally, but as pictorial representations drawn largely from
contemporary Jewish thought.

(i) In reply to this question, we may say at once that we
are bound to allow for the highly figurative terms in which much
of the future is portrayed. We must also allow for the variety
in the pictures of the future. There is scarcely any phase of the
future of the kingdom which is not presented in a variety of
forms. We ought especially to be on our guard against becoming
absorbed in the order of events. We should not, as earnest ser
vants of Christ, waste our time in the effort to make programs

D 2 [ 449 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the future. And we certainly need to avoid the danger of
thinking more about the dramatic pictures of the great events
than of the moral and spiritual preparation necessary to us as
Christians. Certainly we need these admonitions and cautions
in the interest of our spiritual growth and usefulness.

(2) On the other hand, however, it is going too far to say that
none of the great eschatological events which Jesus and the apos
tles foretold are to have historical realization. Indeed, if we
take the position that the entire future of the kingdom is to be
thus understood, we not only ignore what must be evident to
the unbiased reader of the New Testament; but we also thereby
change the very nature of the Christian religion itself as a his
torical religion. Consider a few details. The resurrection of
Jesus is a vital truth. Without it the gospel would at once be
come a different gospel. It is the guaranty and pledge of the
resurrection of the bodies of believers. It is incompatible with
the view that the " survival of death " is the spiritual equivalent
of the doctrine of the resurrection. Man is body as well as
spirit. The resurrection preserves human nature in its integrity.

(3) Again, the resurrection of Jesus was an "apocalyptic"
or " catastrophic " stage in the development of the kingdom. It
was the incorporation of the " catastrophic " element into that
kingdom. It is difficult to see how one who accepts the fact of
the resurrection of Jesus can be content with a so-called spiritual
equivalent which denies the resurrection of believers. This is
wholly apart from the question as to how the resurrection takes
place and the nature of the resurrection body. In a word, the
resurrection of Christ gives character to the present gospel era.
Christianity in its complete New Testament form dates from his
resurrection. Christians now live in the power of a risen life
based on the resurrection of Christ. (Eph. i : 19-22.) The
consummation of the age is to be in terms also of resurrection
glory, as seen in Christ the first-fruits and in his people at his
coming.

(4) Consider the fact of the Second Coming. Properly under
stood, it is the consistent outcome for a religion which began

[450]

Last Things

with a historical incarnation and resurrection. Christ's Person
is the center of God's revelation to men. It is central in our
faith, hope, and love. It is central in history. The preaching
of the gospel of Christ is the task of Christ's people. God is
dealing with men in and through Christ. Now his personal re
turn to earth is certainly not a conception unrelated to all the
above facts. If the religion of Christ is a historical religion, then
the consummation may be best expressed in terms of history.
The Second Coming is the inevitable historical sequence of the
first coming. The two are indissolubly bound together. The
Epistle to the Hebrews has expressed this thought very forcibly.
(Heb. 9 : 27, 28.)

(5) The force of these statements appears when we attempt
with seriousness to grasp the meaning of a Christianity with
a historical beginning, but without a historical consummation.
If we conceive the future in a wholly transcendental or spiritual
manner, as remote from the earth and human history, we must
think of this planet as passing into gradual dissolution and the
race as finally becoming extinct. The hope of a resurrection
passes away. The expectation of Christ's return fades from
the central place in human hopes. Our religion would thus tend
more and more to become a speculative belief. It would revert
to the prechristian or philosophic type. The expectation of the
return of Christ is the spiritual correlate of faith in him who was
the Christ of history. It is the expectation whicli makes of our
faith a self-consistent unity.

(6) Consider the meaning of judgment. We may of course
conceive of a judgment that is wholly inward and spiritual. We
may think of the relation of men to God simply as individuals
and not in their social relations, or as nations, and of a judgment
merely of individuals at death. But such a view certainly leaves
many elements of human conduct and many phases of God's
dealing with men out of the account. The fact is that God's deal
ing with sin always has an inner and an outer aspect. Our bodies
reflect the ravages of sin in our spirits. Penalty takes the form
in society of the decay of social institutions. Nations collapse

[451]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

and fall away when honeycombed with iniquity. The cosmos
itself feels the taint of sin. Now the New Testament doctrine
of judgment simply recognizes this working of the law of sin
and penalty, of righteousness and reward in a culminating judg
ment. The pictorial character of the New Testament representa
tions does not imply denial of the great fact itself.

(7) We sum up by saying that the fundamental problem is not
that of a self-consistent eschatology, but of a self-consistent Chris
tianity. The historical and cosmic moves on parallel lines with
the spiritual and inward development. Nature answers to the
movements of grace. The future resurrection, the Second Com
ing of Christ, and the judgment are points of bright spiritual light
which irradiate the future. But they appear within the frame
work of time and space. A view of the future which ignores the
historical and cosmic side of the development leaves a dualism
in the kingdom which destroys the unity of the divine purpose.
This carries us back to the principle which we have noted in other
connections. It is that the unity which the Christian religion
recognizes is not that based on physical continuity, nor that of
abstract idealism. It is rather a unity arising out of the continuity
of a divine redemptive purpose. Human history and cosmic
forces are subject to the gracious reign of a holy and loving and
personal God.

4. A fourth preliminary question concerns the relation be
tween the present and the future of the kingdom. Can we
reconcile the statements that the kingdom is already in existence
with those which project it into the future? Can we harmonize
the principle of gradual development in the kingdom with the
catastrophic events which appear in the eschatology ? Some have
asserted that these two elements in the Gospels contradict each
other. Certain it is that the kingdom is both present and future
in the teaching of Jesus. It is present in the following passages :
Matthew n : n; 12 : 28; Luke 16 : 16; 17 : 21. It is future
in Matthew i : 21 ; 25 : 34; 26 : 29; Luke 21 : 31. It is also
clear that in the teaching of Jesus the kingdom is represented as
coming gradually in a number of parables. Among these are the

[4521

Last Things

parables of the Leaven, of the Mustard-seed, the Seed Growing
Secretly. It has been urged that the view of Jesus underwent a
change in the course of his ministry, and that this explains the
difference between the present and the future aspects of the
coming of the kingdom. The objection to this is that both aspects
of the teaching appear early and late in his ministry. (See Matt.
10 : 23 ; Mark 8 : 38 ; 9 : i ; Luke 9 : 27.)

If we are to accept the teachings of Jesus, we must recog
nize the presence of both these elements. One group of inter
preters has insisted that with Jesus the present and developing
aspects of the kingdom are the more important and controlling.
Others have asserted that the future and apocalyptic elements
are central and the others incidental and secondary. Both appear
in the closest connection with each other. Evidently Jesus held
them in mind without any sense of inconsistency or contradiction.
The parables of the Virgins and Talents which immediately fol
low the great discourse about the Second Coming show this. He
had just spoken, in the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, of
the signs of his coming; of his sudden appearance in glory,
which seemed to be in the very near future ; and of the startling
effect upon the dwellers upon the earth. Yet in the closing
section of this chapter he speaks of " the evil servant " who
says in his heart, " My Lord tarrieth, and shall begin to beat
his fellow servants" (Matt. 24: 48, 49). Jesus thus recog
nized the element of delay in his return. So also in the two
parables. It is said of the virgins, " Now while the bridegroom
tarried, they all slumbered and slept" (Matt. 25 : 5). And in
the parable of the Talents we read, " Now after a long time the
Lord of those servants cometh, and maketh a reckoning with
them" (Matt. 25 : 19). The point of emphasis here is that if
we are to find an adequate interpretation of the words of Jesus,
we must take account of both elements. There are statements
which seem to teach that his return was in the very near future.
In others it seems far away. We must, if possible, find a key
which will unlock the apparent contradiction. For certainly there
was no sense of contradiction in the mind of Jesus himself,

[ 453 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The chief difficulty arises out of the language of Jesus, in
which he declares that this generation shall not pass away until
these things are accomplished. In his great discourse in Matthew
(chap. 24 and 25) Jesus speaks of three great events, the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, his own return, and the end of the world.
He also speaks of certain prelusive occurrences which would
indicate the near approach of these events. The parallel passages
in Mark and Luke contain the same outstanding features. (Mark
13; Luke 21.) In Matthew 24 : 34 Jesus says, " This generation
shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished." But he
immediately adds in verse 36, " But of that day and hour knoweth
no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father only." Here is an apparent contradiction which is not
easy to understand.

Now various interpretations have been given of the language
of these prophecies of Jesus. Some have even assumed that since
Jesus did not return during that generation, he was mistaken.
Others, that he only had in mind the destruction of Jerusalem
and the end of the Jewish theocracy, and not a personal return
at all. Others have supposed that the authors of the Gospels
have not given us a report which presents the original connections
in which the words were spoken. Hence they do not yield a
clear result when we attempt to interpret them. But is there not
a more direct and simple method of dealing with these passages?

Let us assume that the records as we have them are sub
stantially in harmony with the Master's words. Then we must
assume that the disciples were troubled with the same apparent
contradictions as ourselves. We must then assume further that
Jesus intended that his words should take this form. If, as
some allege, these accounts do not represent the words of Jesus,
but the thoughts of the writers, it is difficult to account for the
alleged contradictions. If the writers took liberties with the
words of Jesus, would they have given us reports in the same
writings in a form so difficult to harmonize and understand?
After all, it is easier to take the records as the original words
of Jesus than as those of the disciples themselves, because the

[454]

Last Things

latter would have avoided the obvious difficulties of the accounts
as they have been transmitted to us.

Proceeding now on the assumption that the narrations are in
substance the reports of the words of Jesus, our interpretation
is as follows: (i) Jesus himself declares his own ignorance of
the day and hour of the return. Men do not know; angels do
not know. Only God the Father knows. Evidently then God
did not intend to reveal the chronology of the future of the king
dom. He did not intend that we should know the time nor the
order of events. There are the best of spiritual reasons for such
ignorance. It surely is better that Christians remain without
knowledge on this point. Attempts to fix dates have always led
to extravagances of one kind or another. It tends to breed
fanaticism and loss of spiritual balance.

(2) If the day and hour of the return of Christ, the central
and controlling event of the future, are unknown, then it follows
that all the chronology is unknown. But ignorance on this point
does not affect the certainty of the events themselves. The
destruction of Jerusalem, the Second Coming, and the end of
the age were all parts of the fixed divine purpose. This certainty
appears in very clear language in the great prophecy.

(3) This leads to the attitude of Jesus to the future throughout
the prophecy. Here we may obtain light from the Old Testa
ment prophets and their attitude to the future. To them " the
Day of the Lord " often included widely separated events. It
was often conceived of as imminent, as being at the door. To
them God's power appeared in contemporary events. History
was dynamic with mighty possibilities because it was under the
control of Jehovah. " The Day of the Lord " was thus often
a spiritual process with great climaxes, in which Jehovah came
in power. Now if we think of Jesus as resembling the prophets
in this respect, his great deliverances as to the future may be
understood much more clearly.

In the mind of Jesus the vision of the future was a unitary
picture of the coming kingdom and the mighty working of God's
power. He dealt not so much with detached events as with the

[455]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

movement as a whole. Certain great events will take place. But
these are so closely bound together in the chain of moral causes
and effects that the coming of one is in part the coming of all.
His own personal return is the supreme event. But it is bound
up indissolubly with the things which precede and those which
follow it.

(4) With this thought in mind it is not difficult to grasp the
main points in this great prophecy of Jesus. The kingdom comes
in three senses. It comes in its beginning. It comes in its progress.
It comes in its consummation. These are one in principle. The
consummation is latent in the beginning. The beginning is patent
in the consummation. Jesus beholds the consummation in any
event whether at the beginning, in the progress, or at the end.
So also the Second Coming of Christ. It is the equivalent of
the coming of the kingdom. He comes in the beginning, in the
continuance, and in the end of the era. Events belonging to the
series which is unified around the Second Coming are in a real
sense comings of the Lord. There is a striking saying of Jesus
which shows the truth of this last statement. Jesus, in Matthew
26 : 64, says in reply to the high priest's question, " Henceforth
ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power,
and coming on the clouds of heaven." The phrase translated
" henceforth " ( a/>' arti) does not mean " hereafter," as if some
future time were in view. It means from the time when Jesus
spoke the words — " from now on." He means that the era of
God's power, as exerted in and through his Son, has begun. The
Son of man is " henceforth " the ruler of history.

Events which followed upon these words of Jesus confirmed
them. His death was a departure from the earth, and certainly
his resurrection from the dead was a return in power. Of course
it did not take the place of the great event of the future, the
Parousia, when he shall return to judge the world. (See Acts
I : n.) The gift of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost
was another great event belonging to the series in the near future.
The destruction of Jerusalem was clearly included in the near
events portrayed in his great prophecy, These events were,

[456]

Last Things

comings of Christ. They were witnessed by men who heard
his words and who remained alive, according to his prediction,
until the fulfilment.

The Gospel of John in an important manner supplements the
teachings of the synoptics on the doctrine of last things. Mat
thew, Mark, and Luke deal for the most part with events. John,
as a rule, deals with principles. But John also recognizes events.
The personal return of Christ is taught by him in unequivocal
terms. (John 14 : 3 ; 21 : 22.) There can be no doubt as to the
meaning in 21 : 22, and it is not easy to understand 14 : 3 as
other than a personal return when we connect it with verse 2,
where he says, " I go to prepare a place for you." There is no
contradiction between John's teachings and that of the synoptics
on this point.

It remains true, however, that John emphasizes the coming and
work of the Holy Spirit. This is equivalent to an inward and
spiritual coming of Christ. This comes out in various passages,
but especially in chapters 14, 15, and 16 in the Gospel. In
accordance with this John deals with nearly all the elements of
eschatology as spiritual principles as well as objective events.
He represents Jesus as saying regarding death, " Whosoever
liveth and believeth on me shall never die " ( John 1 1 : 26) .
Referring to himself also, he says, " He that eateth this bread
shall live forever" (John 6: 58). The resurrection also is
represented as a spiritual principle as well as an objective event:
" The hour cometh and now is when the dead shall hear the
voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall live " (John
5 : 25). But in 5 : 28, 29 he adds a teaching as to the future
resurrection of the good and evil. In like manner the judgment
is set forth as a spiritual principle : " He that heareth my word
and believeth on him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh
not into judgment, but hath passed out of death unto life " (John
5 : 24). In the twenty-ninth verse he teaches also a judgment
which is to follow the resurrection.

If now we put together the teachings of the synoptics and
those of the Fourth Gospel, we conclude in answer to the qnes-

[ 457 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

tion at the beginning of this section as follows : First, the
doctrine of last things includes events and processes in the moral
and spiritual life. The eschatology of the Gospels cannot be
reduced to events to the exclusion of principles, nor to principles
to the exclusion of events. Both appear in indissoluble union.
Secondly, the kingdom of God is both near and far in the
representations of the New Testament writers. But there is no
evidence as to how near or how far the events may be in the
future. Thirdly, the center of the Christian hope is in the return
of Jesus Christ. Fourthly, the return itself is the event in the
light of which other events are viewed and by which they are
to be understood. There is much more to be said under the
separate topics in the doctrine of last things, as we shall see.
But having answered these preliminary general questions, we
may proceed to matters of detail, vis., Death, the Intermediate
State, the Second Coming of Christ, the Judgment, and the Final
States of the Righteous and Wicked.

III. DEATH OF THE BODY

Physical death is the separation of soul and body. In Scrip
ture teaching it is closely connected with spiritual death, which
is the separation of the soul from God. The Bible deals with all
questions from the religious point of view. There is no treat
ment of the subject of death from the standpoint of modern
science or biological law. Death was pronounced as the penalty
of the first sin. Primarily this was a spiritual dying or sever
ance of the bond of union between God and man. But it also
included physical death. Men are declared to be " dead through
trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2 : i). This of course does not
mean a form of existence devoid of all activity. It means
simply a life without a vital relation to God, apart from God.
The death of the body is the culmination of such a life on
earth. The " second death " is declared to be the final outcome
when the separation from God becomes formal banishment from
his presence at the last judgment. (Rev. 20 : 14.)

[458]

Last Things

In accordance with the above the Christian hope includes a vic
tory over death. The apostle Paul condenses the whole teach
ing of Scripture in a statement at the close of his great passage
on the resurrection: " The sting of death is sin; and the power
of sin is the law : but thanks be to God who giveth us the vic
tory through our Lord Jesus Christ " (i Cor. 15 : 56, 57). From
this we conclude: (i) That physical death was a part of the
penalty for sin; (2) that for those who do not share in Christ's
salvation the penalty remains; (3) that in the case of the Chris
tian, while the physical organism undergoes the change we call
death, yet it is no longer death in the penal sense, it is trans
formed and becomes spiritual victory; (4) finally, the victory
over death is secured for us solely through the resurrection of
Christ from the dead and his communication of life to us.

IV. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE

On the subject of the intermediate state little is to be gained
by speculation. The teachings of Scripture are not numerous
on the subject, but they are clear and sufficient so far as they go.
They leave many problems unsolved, but they give assurance on
the main points. We give first a review of the teachings of the
New Testament and then a summary of results.

The word Hades, as employed in the New Testament, is prac
tically equivalent in meaning to Sheol in the Old Testament. It
means simply the abode of the dead. It tells nothing of their
moral state. Good and evil are represented alike as entering
this abode of the dead. Hades is not Paradise; neither is it
Gehenna. It may be either, but it is not to be identified with
either. The use of the word Hades does not of itself tell whether
he who enters it passes down to misery or upward to bliss. He
may pass in either direction. Jesus entered Hades. (Acts 2 : 31.)
So also did the rich man in the parable. (Luke 16 : 23.) Hades
is thus represented in the New Testament as a realm apart from
the present life into which all the dead enter. But the New Tes
tament goes beyond this. It has positive teachings as to the estate

[ 459 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of the dead. We consider some of the more important of these
in their bearing upon the state of the righteous dead.

i. The Righteous Dead

In Matthew 22 : 32 Jesus says, referring to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, " God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
He declares that Lazarus " was carried away by the angels into
Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16 : 22). Again, to the dying robber
he says, " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke
23 : 43). To the sorrowing Martha Jesus says, "Whosoever
liveth and believeth on me shall never die" (John n : 26). In
2 Corinthians 5 : i the apostle Paul declares that if the " earthly
house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God,
a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." In Philip-
pians i : 23 he says he has a " desire to depart and be with Christ,
for it is very far better." In Revelation 6 : 9-11 the disembodied
spirits of the dead are represented as being in a state of con
sciousness and calling upon God.

From these Scriptures we draw the following conclusions: (i)
At death the Christian goes directly into the presence of Christ
and of God. There is not a long delay between the moment of
death and some future time. (2) The state in which they exist
there is a conscious state. In the passages cited this appears in
various ways. In Romans 8 : 38 Paul declares that nothing shall
separate us from the love of Christ. He means that our moral and
spiritual relationship to Christ is to be continuous. This is scarcely
in harmony with the idea of an indefinite period of interrupted
fellowship. (3) The disembodied dead who are thus present
with Christ and conscious are also in a state of happiness and
rest. Paul declares that it is far better than his present life of
toil. Revelation 14 : 13 states that the dead who die in the Lord
are " blessed," and that they " rest from their labors." (4) There
is no basis in the New Testament teaching for what is known as
the doctrine of " soul-sleeping/7 According to this the souls of
the dead remain in a state of unconsciousness until the resurrec-

[4601

Last Things

lion of the body, when soul and body arc reunited and conscious
ness returns. The doctrine includes the wicked as well as the
righteous. In reply, we of course admit that the Scriptures refer
to death as a sleep in a number of passages. (E. g., Dan. 12 : 2;
Matt. 9 : 24; John n : u ; i Thess. 5 : 10.) But nowhere is it
said that the " soul " sleeps. The reference is to the personality
as a whole, and the figure of sleep must be interpreted in harmony
with the general teachings we have presented as the uniform doc
trine of the New Testament. Sleep means " not alive to sur
roundings." A man asleep knows nothing of the activities about
him. So death is a sleep in the sense that men become alive to a
new set of surroundings and cut off from those of the present
life. In one passage the idea of death as a sleep and that of con
scious fellowship with Christ are combined in a single statement.
In I Thessalonians 5 : 10 the apostle refers to Christ " who
died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live
together with him."

(5) The teachings presented give no warrant for the Roman
Catholic doctrine of purgatory. According to this doctrine only
perfected saints escape purgatorial sufferings. All other Chris
tians must be purged and cleansed in purgatory before they are
prepared for the next stage. Prayers and masses for the dead
are said. They shorten the misery of those in purgatory.

As we have seen, the best reply to this dogma is the positive
teaching of Scripture. It is founded on certain sayings of Church
Fathers, Augustine, Cyprian, and Tertullian, and certain perver
sions of New Testament passages, like i Corinthians 3 : 13, 14.

(6) The intermediate state is not the final state of believers. It
is represented as a relatively imperfect state. The apostle Paul
shrank from it as from an unclothed condition. (2 Cor. 5 : 3, 4.)
He longed for the resurrection of the dead. (Phil. 3 : u.) All
the teachings of the New Testament regarding the resurrection
and final state of the righteous show that the intermediate state is
not regarded as ideal or final. Man is body as well as spirit,
and the disembodied state is necessarily lacking in one element
of human perfection, which will be supplied at the resurrection.

[461]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

2. The Unrighteous Dead

There are a few passages which shed light upon the intermediate
state of the unrighteous dead. One of these which is frequently
cited represents them as "in prison" (i Peter 3 : 19). This,
however, is a passage difficult to interpret satisfactorily, and may
be understood as not referring to the dead at all, but to those
who were alive in the days of Noah. There are a few other pas
sages which are not doubtful on the main point. In the parable
of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus says of the rich man: " And
in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and seeth Abra
ham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and
said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that
he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue, for

1 am in anguish in this flame " (Luke 16 : 23, 24). We must of
course recognize here that we are dealing with a parable, and
there are many difficulties of interpretation. But the central truths
are that Lazarus was in a state of conscious blessedness and
the rich man in a state of conscious suffering. Again, in 2 Peter

2 : 9 we read, " The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out
of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto
the day of judgment." We have thus only brief glimpses of the
state of the wicked in the period between death and the final judg
ment. But these indicate that they are conscious and that already
they have begun to endure the penalty of their wicked lives.

V. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST

We have in a previous section answered some of the funda
mental questions about the Second Coming of Christ. We now
complete what was said there by the following statements :

I. The uniform teaching of the New Testament is that the
Second Coming is to be an outward, visible, and personal return
of Christ. We learned that this is the clear teaching of Jesus
himself. It is equally clear in the teachings of the book of Acts
and in the Epistles. In Acts i : 1 1 we read, " This Jesus, who

[462]

Last Things

was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like
manner as ye beheld him going into heaven." The phrase in
like manner (hon tropon) does not express the certainty of
Christ's return merely, but also the manner. As he was received
up visibly so would he return visibly to the earth. In I Thes-
salonians 4 : 16 Paul declares, " For the Lord himself shall
descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the arch
angel, and with the trump of God." In 2 Peter 3 : 3-12 we read,
" In the last days mockers shall come . . . saying, Where is the
promise of his coming?" In James 5 : 8 also: "Be ye also
patient; establish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord is
at hand." And in Revelation 22 : 12 the language is: " Behold,
I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each
man according as his work is." Those passages could be greatly
multiplied if necessary. They serve to show indisputably that
the expectation of a visible personal return of Christ was com
mon to the New Testament writers.

2. The exact time of the personal return of Christ is unre-
vealed. Jesus declared that he himself did not know the day
or the hour of his return. (Matt. 24 : 36; Mark 13 : 32.) In
Acts I : 7 he is represented as cautioning disciples against at
tempting to pry into the events of the future : " It is not for you
to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within his
own authority." In verse 8 he adds that they should receive
power after the coming of the Holy Spirit, and that they should
witness for him to the ends of the earth. Evidently Jesus was
concerned much more about the devotion of his people to their
practical duties and tasks than that they should know the details
of the future.

3. We repeat here the statement previously made that Jesus
recognized subordinate comings in the events of history in addi
tion to the Second Coming itself in its visible and personal aspect.
This principle is expressed in the Gospel of John in his promise
to come through the Holy Spirit and make his abode in disciples.
It appears in unmistakable terms in the statement in Matthew
26 : 64: "Henceforth," that is, "From now," from the present

[463]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

time, " ye shall see the Son of man . . . coming on the clouds of
heaven."

4. The attitude of the New Testament writers and the disciples
generally toward the Second Coming was one of constant ex
pectancy. There is scarcely any difference of opinion on this
point among interpreters of the New Testament. To them his
coming was ever imminent. It might occur at any time, even
during the lives of the generation then on earth. In some pas
sages certain events are to precede. The " falling away " and
the rise of Antichrist, or the man of sin, were among these as
set forth by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 : 1-12. Some have thought
that Paul's doctrine of the Second Coming underwent a change
toward the latter part of his career. But there is no real con
tradiction between his earlier and later views. The variations in
emphasis which we find in his Epistles are explained by the
variations in the circumstances of his readers and the situation
which he desired to meet.

The question arises : How then are we to explain this uniform
expectation of the near return of Christ? Was Paul mistaken?
Were the other apostles in error? This inference is often drawn.
But it is an inference which overlooks certain important factors
which are required by the New Testament records themselves.
It overlooks, first of all, the difference between a mental and
spiritual attitude and a dogmatic teaching. The disciples looked
for the return at any time. But they did not expressly assert
that Christ would, without fail, come during their lives. The
inference that Paul and others were mistaken also overlooks the
clear warnings given by Paul himself (2 Thess. 2 : 1-12) and by
Peter (2 Peter 3 : 3-12) against the premature expectation of
Christ's return. It overlooks, in the third place, the fact that this
expectation of the near return was in obedience to repeated com
mands of Jesus while on earth. In a number of instances he
enjoined upon the disciples the duty of constant watchfulness
and expectancy. (Matt. 24 : 42; 25 : 13; Mark 13 : 35-37.)
When we compare the words of Jesus in these passages with
what we find in the later New Testament writings, we are struck

[4641

Last Things

with their agreement with each other. If the apostles, after Jesus'
departure, had abandoned the thought of his personal return, we
should be at a loss to understand their attitude. In the above
passages the very ignorance of disciples as to the time of the
return and their uncertainty regarding it were made the basis of
the exhortation to watch constantly.

5. There are at least two ways in which the expectation of
Christ's near return served the ends of the kingdom of God
among these early Christians. First, it was a moral and spiritual
incentive of the highest value. The age was one of great trial
and suffering. The thought of Christ's return in power was a
source of great consolation, and inspired to zeal and devotion.
Whenever it led to extravagant or fanatical forms of conduct,
these were at once corrected by the apostles. The belief was
turned to moral and spiritual account, to the uses of sobriety
and of holy living. Secondly, the expectation of Christ's personal
return gave unity to the faith of believers. The Christ who
had already come was the Christ who would come again. If
Christ had abandoned the world forever after the ascent from
Olivet, a great blank would have been left in the future for his
followers. What is to be the outcome of Christian effort? How
is the ongoing of history to terminate? What is the dominant
force in the history of the world? Questions like these would
have been left without satisfactory answer apart from the doc
trine of the Second Coming. His return in glory was thus a truth
which held him closely bound to the fortunes of his people on
earth. For them he was ever thus the Christ who stood within
the shadow " keeping watch above his own." These same prin
ciples apply to Christians of to-day under the changed circum
stances of the world. Any age of self-indulgence needs the same
stimulus to holy living. There has been vast ingenuity and
arduous labor on the part of scholars in dealing with this element
in the religion of Christ as set forth in the New Testament. But
there has often been a notable lack of spiritual insight and of
sympathy with the genius of the Christian faith. Jesus Christ as
Revealer of God and Redeemer of men fills the horizon of

E2 [465]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

the Christian believer, the horizon of the future as well as of the
present and the past. The whole of the personal life in its relation
to God and to history must be construed in terms of the personal
relation to Christ himself.

VI. THE QUESTION AS TO THE MILLENNIUM

There is very general agreement among interpreters that the
New Testament teaches a visible and personal return of Christ.
There has been from the beginning of Christian history, how
ever, a division over the question of the thousand years' reign
of the saints with Christ upon earth. This period is known as
the millennium. The passage in which specific reference is made
to it is Revelation 20 : 1-6. The issue between premillennialists
and postmillennialists is over the question whether the Second
Coming of Christ will precede or follow the thousand years. It
will be impossible to deal with this controversy in anything like
an exhaustive manner. But we may indicate the leading points
at issue and the leading considerations for and against the re
spective views, and follow this with our own conclusions.

Premillennialists hold that the return of Christ to earth will
precede the period known as the millennium. The general out
line of the view is as follows : ( I ) When Christ returns the world
generally will be under the power of evil. Antichrist will have
sway among men. (Matt. 24 : 24, 29, 30.) (2) At his coming
Christ will win a notable victory over his enemies and will destroy
Antichrist. (2 Thess. 2:8; Jude 14, 15.) (3) Living Chris
tians will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. (i Thess.
4 : 17.) (4) There will be a resurrection of the dead in Christ
at the beginning of the millennial period. This is known as the
first resurrection. (Rev. 20 : 4-6.) (5) Then follows a pre
liminary judgment of the living nations, and the risen saints will
reign with Christ a thousand years. (Rev. 20 : 4; Matt. 25 :
31-46.) (6) At the end of the thousand years there will be a
return of flagrant wickedness through the loosing of Satan,
who has been bound. (Rev. 20 : 7-10.) (7) Following this the

Last Things

resurrection of the wicked will take place, and this will be suc
ceeded by the final judgment and eternal awards. (Rev. 20 :
12-15.) There are many details which are not indicated in
the above outline. It should be said also that premillennialists
are not agreed among themselves on all details. But the salient
features are substantially as indicated.

There are many passages of Scripture which are relied upon.
The chief ones are the words of Christ in Matthew, chapters 24
and 25, and the corresponding sections in Mark and Luke; the
passages in i Thessalonians 4 : 13-18 and 2 Thessalonians 2 :
1-12', Paul's language in r Corinthians 15 : 20-24; and Revelation
20 : 1-6. Along with these, many other New Testament pas
sages and divers Old Testament prophecies are cited. We have
given brief references under the preceding points, but the total
impression is much stronger for the premillennial view when
the extended passages just given are read in their entirety.

The postmillennial view also holds that there will be a period
of a thousand years during which Christianity will triumph over
the earth. This millennial period will be the result of the gradual
spread of the gospel and its conquest over all departments of
human life. At the end of this period the conflict between the
powers of good and evil will be renewed for a time, after which
Christ will return in person. Then will take place the resurrec
tion of the righteous and the wicked. This will be followed by
the final judgment and eternal awards.

In support of the postmillennial view many passages are cited
in which the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked seems
to take place at the same time; in which this is represented as
occurring in close connection with the Second Coming of Christ
on the one hand and the final judgment on the other. The
millennial period itself which precedes these events is derived
from the same passage in Revelation 20 : i-io. We give a few
details of the interpretation. Matthew 16 : 27 connects the
rendering to " every man according to his deeds," with the com
ing of Christ in the " glory of his Father." So also in Matthew
25 : 31-33, Christ comes and sits on the throne of his glory and

[467]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

judges all the nations. In John 5 : 28, 29 it is declared that " the
hour cometh " in which all that are in the tomb, both righteous
and wicked, shall be raised for judgment. In 2 Thessalonians
I : 6-10 Christ is represented as coming " in flaming fire," and
punishing the wicked with " eternal destruction from the face of
the Lord." In 2 Peter 3 : 7, 10 again the " Day of the Lord " is
closely connected with the judgment of ungodly men and the
destruction of the earth by fire. In Revelation 20 : 11-15 there
is a portrayal of the final judgment, in which all men appear to
gether and eternal awards are declared.

Objections to the Two Theories

We give now a brief summary of the principal objections to
each of these systems of interpretation as urged by the advocates
of the opposing view.

Postmillennialists object to the premillennial view on various
grounds, (i) It builds chiefly on one passage in Revelation
20 : r-io, which belongs to the most figurative and poetic writing
of the entire New Testament. Besides this, the passage does
not assert that all the dead in Christ will be raised and reign
with him, but only the martyrs, or those " that had been beheaded
for the testimony of Jesus." Further, it is argued that the " first
resurrection " mentioned here may refer to the spiritual resur
rection which appears so frequently in the sayings of Jesus, of
John, and of Paul. Thus it is inferred that the entire passage
may be a symbolic representation of the triumph of spiritual
principles during a long period. (2) It is objected also that the
premillennial view ignores all those passages in which the resur
rection and judgment of the righteous and wicked are declared
to occur simultaneously. (3) So also it ignores the numerous
parables and other Scriptures in which the progress of the king
dom on earth is represented as taking place gradually and not by
sudden catastrophes. As Dr. J. B. Thomas expressed it, " The
kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard-seed, not like a
can of nitroglycerin." (4) It is also urged against premillen-

Last Things

nialism that it involves insuperable difficulties as to the nature of
the kingdom of Christ. Risen saints live and reign on earth with
generations who are born and live out their natural lives in the
ordinary way. Thus incongruous or contradictory elements are
introduced. (5) The view tends to superficial work in that it
holds that the gospel is to be preached merely " for a witness "
to all nations before Christ comes. The phrase is scriptural, but
its meaning as a hasty proclamation simply is denied. (6) The
view tends to pessimism in that it carries the belief that the world
will grow worse until the Lord's return. Thus the motive which
inspires to the highest effort is destroyed. (7) It tends to an
undue emphasis upon a single truth with the inevitable conse
quences of too little stress upon other truths, and the further
consequence of making of it a divisive issue among Christians,
and sometimes a tendency to extravagance and fanaticism.

Premillennialists also object vigorously to the postmillennial
view on various grounds, (i) It ignores the clear and obvious
meaning of Revelation 20 : i-io as well as the other passages
which have been cited in favor of the premillennial view — two
resurrections and two judgments. (2) It ignores those passages
which show that wickedness will still be rife upon the earth
when Christ returns. (3) It leaves out of account the teach
ings as to Antichrist. The passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 : i-n
shows that evil gradually heads up in Antichrist, and prohibits the
conception of a thousand-year period of gospel triumph prior to
Christ's return. (4) It also ignores such Scriptures as represent
the progress of the kingdom through sudden catastrophic events,
such as i Thessalonians 5 : 1-3, the parable of the Virgins, and
various other passages. (5) It also fails to consider a great num
ber of Old Testament prophecies which clearly refer to a glorious
kingdom of Christ on this earth, involving the restoration of
Israel and other important results. (6) It ignores the distinction
between the judgment of the nations in Matthew 25 : 31-46 and
the final judgment of the Great White Throne in Revelation
20 : 11-15. (7) Finally, it is urged, the postmillennial view
allows no place in the Christian's spiritual attitude for the New

[469]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Testament expectation of Christ's return. For if that return is
deferred to the end of a thousand-year period, it will inevitably
die out of the living experience of believers as a potent factor
in life and devotion. Here there is a sharp clash of opinion.
The postmillennialist charges that the opposing view compromises
the veracity of God, in that he commanded a constant expecta
tion of an event which he foreknew would not take place for
nineteen hundred years. The premillennialist replies that the
wisdom of God is compromised even more by the injunction
to constant expectancy of Christ's coming coupled with the
teaching that a thousand years of .gospel triumph must precede.

Conclusion

There are numerous subordinate points of the controversy
which we have not touched upon in the preceding review. But
the leading issues have been indicated. Our own conclusion may
now be stated. It is as follows :

First, the passage in Revelation 20 : i-io has been given too
great prominence in the doctrine of last things by both sides in
the millennial controversy. If it is taken literally in all details,
it certainly seems to teach the premillennial view in part. But it
limits the number of saints who reign with Christ to martyrs.
A misgiving also arises as to the place of the thousand-year reign.
Nowhere in the vision (ver. 4-10) is it said that these mar
tyred saints reign with Christ on this earth a thousand years.
The seer does not say where it occurs. Throughout the book of
Revelation John passes at will from heaven to earth and back
again. The visions are symbolic in the highest degree in com
bination with elements that are literal as well. It is at least
hazardous to make a single passage like this determinative for
the interpretation of a great mass of Scriptures which are not
symbolic or highly figurative in form. Yet this is done by both
schools. The millennium is the central issue. Everything turns
on this.

Secondly, the teaching of the Old and New Testaments alike

[470]

Last Things

is the ultimate triumph of God's kingdom on earth. Nothing
could well be clearer than this, even in the book of Revelation.
All the stages of the vision move gradually forward through
conflict to the final denouement in the descent of the city of God
to this earth. But no system of interpretation has yet been
found which can trace successfully the meaning of all the details.
The message of the book is the ultimate triumph. Inspired by
this hope and conviction we may face our tasks as Christians-.

Thirdly, both the pre- and the postmillennial theories leave many
insoluble problems. The postmillennialist certainly has an im
possible task in trying to find a place in his conception of the
future for the New Testament attitude of constant expectancy
for the coming of Christ. The premillennialist overloads his
program of the future so that one staggers under the burden.
Both make a great mass of literal passages subordinate and
tributary to one passage in a symbolic context in a highly figura
tive book.

Fourthly, one event occupies the central place in the vision
of the future throughout the New Testament from Matthew to
Revelation. That event is the Second Coming of Christ. All
else is subordinate and tributary to that. Side by side with it
are descriptions of gradual growth and of sudden catastrophes
in the coming kingdom. There are comings in historical events,
and the one great coming. There are great delays and great suf
ferings, and there are glorious and sudden triumphs. There is
no sort of question as to at least one resurrection, and one judg
ment, and one eternal kingdom. There is no clear assurance that
there must be a thousand years of perfect piety on earth before
Christ returns. There is no clear guaranty that he will reign
literally on earth with all the risen saints a thousand years before
the final judgment.

In the fifth place, it follows that Christians should cultivate
the New Testament attitude of expectancy. We should ever be
as men who look for their Lord, because he commanded it, and
because we love him and trust him, and because all the future
would be blank without him. He is the key which unlocks for

[471]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

us the hidden things of the coming ages. But we should not
become absorbed in apocalyptic calculations and speculations.
We should not be so assured of the program of the unrevealed
future that we " begin to beat our fellow servants " because they
do not accept our particular interpretation. (Matt. 24 : 49.) We
should not attempt to fix dates or insist too greatly upon detailed
programs. We should be faithful in every detail of duty. We
should ever watch against temptation and pray for divine strength.
We should cultivate a passion for righteousness, individual and
social. We should work while it is day, knowing that the night
cometh when no man can work. We should be so eager for the
coming of our Lord, that if he should come to-morrow we would
not be taken by surprise. We should so hold ourselves in re
straint, that if his return should be delayed a thousand or ten
thousand years, we would not be disappointed. And our hearts
should be ever filled with joy at the prospect of his coming and
the certain triumph of his kingdom.

VII. THE RESURRECTION

The resurrection of the body is a leading topic in the New
Testament .doctrine of last things. We have already seen how
it came into clear recognition in the later stages of the Old Tes
tament revelation. (See Isa. 26 : 19; Ezek. 37 : 1-14; Job 14 :
12-15; Dan. 12 : 2.) We give now a brief presentation of
New Testament passages.

The most explicit teaching of Jesus is in reply to the Sadducees
who denied the resurrection of the body. This appears in all the
synoptic Gospels. (Matt. 22 : 23-33; Mark 12 : 18-27; Luke
20 : 27-40.) In brief Jesus says to his questioners that "as
touching the resurrection of the dead " they were in error, " not
knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." He then quotes
Exodus 3 : 6. God says, " I am the God of Abraham, and the
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then he adds, " God is
not the God of the dead, but of the living." Other passages clearly
imply the doctrine of the resurrection, such as Matthew 8 : 11;

[472]

Last Things

Luke 13 : 28, 29. In the Fourth Gospel the same teaching ap
pears. There the spiritual resurrection is taught, along with ex
plicit statements as to the resurrection of the body. Notable pas
sages are John 1 1 : 23-26, where Jesus declares to Martha that
he is " the resurrection and the life," and John 5 : 25-29, where
Jesus foretells the resurrection of the righteous and the un
righteous : " All that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and
shall come forth ; they that have done good, unto the resurrection
of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
judgment."

In the book of Acts the resurrection of Jesus is everywhere
assumed as a fundamental fact of the gospel, and along with it
appears the doctrine of the resurrection of men generally. (Acts

1 : 3; 2 : 30-33; 17 : l8; 22 : 7~9J 24 : IS-) Jn the last pas
sage the apostle Paul announces explicitly a resurrection of the
" just and unjust." Ordinarily, in the many passages in his
Epistles dealing with the resurrection, Paul has in mind believers.
But there is no convincing evidence that, as some have held, he
denied the resurrection of the unrighteous. All the evidence we
have points the other way.

In the Epistles the resurrection bulks largely in Paul's teach
ings. It is discussed in various aspects, and is a presupposition
of all his exposition on the spiritual life in Christ. We need only
present the chief points in his doctrine. The resurrection of
Christ is the corner-stone of his teaching. Christ was " marked
out " to be the Son of God with power " by the resurrection
from the dead" (Rom. i : 4). The resurrection of Christ is
the basis of the Christian hope and the guaranty of the resurrec
tion of all those who are in Christ. The fifteenth chapter of
First Corinthians is devoted to this great theme. Again, Paul
declares repeatedly that all believers are now living a resurrec
tion life in the spiritual sense of the word. (Eph. 2 : 5, 6; Col.

2 : 20; 3 : 4.) In Romans 8 : n he declares that the present
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers is the pledge of their
resurrection. The present spiritual resurrection and the future
raising of the body are conceived of as one continuous process.

[ 473 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

In harmony with this he speaks of " attaining unto the resur
rection from the dead" by sacrifice and spiritual struggle. In
Romans 8 : 19-24 Paul declares that nature itself, that is, crea
tion apart from man, will share in the resurrection glory. Nature
groans and awaits the resurrection, " the redemption of our
body" (Rom. 8 : 23). In harmony with this doctrine of the
resurrection in the four Gospels, in Acts, and in the Pauline
Epistles, is the teaching in the other books of the New Testament.

We may next consider two questions about the resurrection,
one as to the spirit, the other as to the body. The first is this :
May we not interpret the New Testament teaching as a vivid
and figurative way of declaring simply the continued life of the
spirit, or what we ordinarily mean by the immortality of the
soul? The answer must be a decisive negative. The current
beliefs of the Jews when Christ spoke forbid this. The issue
between Sadducees and Pharisees was clear. One affirmed and
the other denied the resurrection. Christ's assertion on the sub
ject could not have meant merely the continued spiritual exist
ence of the soul. Paul refutes those who asserted that " the
resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2 : 18), thus showing that
the body and not the spirit alone was involved in the resurrec
tion in I Corinthians 15 : 44. By this he can only mean a body
adapted to the spirit in its perfected state, a body which would
be a perfect instrument of the spirit. In general, we may add
that there is no basis whatever in the New Testament for the
conception of the Greek philosophy which tended to disparage
the body because it is made of matter, and to insist simply upon
an incorporeal life of the spirit in the future. Human nature as
a whole, in both its aspects, as body and as spirit, is the biblical
conception of the true life.

The second question relates to the body. How is the body
raised from the dead? Through what changes does it pass?
The body dies and is buried; or it is burned; or it is drowned
in the sea. Its particles are dissipated in all directions. They
reappear in vegetation or in other material forms. Our bodies
constantly change, even before death. We are all the time shed-

[474]

Last Things

ding the old and forming new bodies by the processes of life.
From these facts it is clear that the resurrection body is not
identical in material particles with the present body, or the body
that is laid in the grave. How, then, shall we conceive of the
resurrection body? Does God create a new body entirely? Or
does the spirit of man fashion for itself a spiritual body after
death? Or do we possess such a body within the present body?

Here we are on speculative ground. The Scriptures exhibit
a remarkable restraint and reserve in this matter. There are
no assertions which are negatived by any of the difficulties sug
gested. There are none which dissipate all our ignorance.

A bright shaft of light penetrates the veil and we see enough
to assure and comfort us, but we have no general view of the
world beyond. Paul's discussion in the fifteenth chapter of First
Corinthians yields the following general statements: (i) The
new body will be a " spiritual body " as contrasted with the
present natural and perishable body. It will be perfectly adapted
to the needs of our spirit. Our spirit will be perfectly clothed.
(2) This spiritual body will differ greatly from the present body.
He contrasts the " bare grain " of wheat that is sown with the
stalk of wheat that comes from it. The point of contrast is be
tween the mortality and corruption of the body as we now know
it and the immortality and glory of the resurrection body.
Christ's risen body, with its power of rapid movement, of
vanishing and reappearing, of exemption from the ordinary laws
of time and space, suggests the nature of the contrast. (3) And
yet there is a connection between the old and the new body.
" It " is sown, and " it " is raised. What the connection is we
do not know.

Summary of the New Testament Teaching

We sum up what has been said about the resurrection in the
following general statements based on a correlation and com
parison of the pertinent passages in the New Testament. First,
the resurrection of Christ is the controlling fact of history in all

[475]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

doctrinal statements about the resurrection. The Christian re
ligion in its present form began to be a regenerative, a recreative
force when Jesus arose from the dead. The first gospel related
to Jesus and the resurrection.

Secondly, the resurrection of the bodies of believers became
an article of faith of the early Christians for the twofold reason
that Jesus had risen, and that he had made manifest his power
as risen Lord in the experience of his disciples. The hope of
resurrection became thus not a detachable belief. It could not
be laid aside without vital injury to the whole system of facts
and forces to which it belonged.

Thirdly, a present spiritual resurrection was regarded as the
preliminary to the final resurrection of the body. The two were
bound up in an indissoluble unity. The Holy Spirit had already
made believers alive in Christ. The culmination of his divine
working would be manifested in risen and glorified bodies.

Fourthly, for the apostle Paul the combination of these two
thoughts, the present spiritual resurrection and that of the body
hereafter, led to the thought of the resurrection of the body
as an attainment. In Philippians 3 : 7-16 he declares that he
suffers the loss of all things that he may " gain Christ," and be
" found in him," " that I may know him, and the power of
his resurrection," " being conformed unto his death ; if by any
means I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead." We
are, of course, not to understand the apostle as doubting the
fact of the resurrection of the body; nor that he hopes to win
it by merit. He is simply thinking of the resurrection of the
body as the last stage in a moral and spiritual process. The
mystic union with Christ, the present resurrection life, has its
own proper goal, the resurrection of the body. For Paul, the
power working in him must be understood as moving toward an
end in harmony with itself. Thus the resurrection of the body
was implicit, as it were, in the logic of the life in Christ.
Experience demands the resurrection as its fruit and goal.

Fifthly, the resurrection of the body was implicit in the first
creation, " If there is a natural body," says the apostle, " there

[476]

Last Things

is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, the first man Adam
became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is
natural; then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the
earth, earthy; the second man is of heaven. . . As we have borne
the image of the earthy we shall also bear the image of the
heavenly" (i Cor. 15 : 44-49)- In this passage it seems evi
dent that Paul thinks of the first creation as a stage in a plan
which moved toward a higher goal. God's thought was not
fully realized in the creation of a perishable body for an immortal
being. A spiritual organism was required by a divinely endowed
spirit. In Christ, the new head of the race, the new level is at
tained in both body and spirit. Through him man now partakes
of the resurrection life in his spirit. To match this he will have
in due time a body possessing the same qualities. Then the new
creation in Christ will correspond in both respects with the first
creation in Adam.

Sixthly, physical nature itself is related closely to the resur
rection hope of Christians. The passage in Romans 8 : 19-25
declares that the " earnest expectation " of the creation waiteth
for the revealing of the sons of God; that "the creation was
subjected to vanity"; that this was " not of its own will"; that
this subjection was in hope that " the creation itself shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the
glory of the children of God " ; and also that the goal in view is
" our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

These words suggest that there is a maladjustment between
God's children and God's world. The true end of nature is being
defeated because of this want of adjustment due to sin. It is as
if nature itself longs to become the complete and fit instrument
for the promotion of the welfare of God's children; as if it were
protesting against the present abnormal situation; as if it strained
its gaze into the future in " earnest expectation " of the coming
glory.

In his doctrine here the apostle transcends every form of
dualism in his outlook upon the future. Nature and spirit are

[4771

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

not irreconcilable elements in a finite world. In both shall be
realized God's purpose of grace, a purpose which can be ex
pressed in no terms lower than the " liberty of the glory of the
children of God."

VIII. THE JUDGMENT

The statements of the New Testament regarding the final judg
ment may be grouped under the following heads: The Fact, the
Judge, the Subjects, the Purpose, the Necessity of the Final
Judgment.

1. As to the fact itself little need be said, since this appears
in connection with each of the other points. The principle of
judgment runs through the Scriptures from beginning to end.
The earliest sections of the Old Testament as well as all parts
of the New show this in unmistakable terms. The great final
judgment takes definite shape in the revelation in Jesus Christ.
It is this we now consider.

2. The Judge. In the teaching of Christ and the' apostles, God
is of course the final Judge; but it is God in Christ. In Matthew
25 : 31-46 Jesus predicts that he, the Son of man, will come in
his glory, and all the angels with him; that he shall sit upon
the throne of his glory; that all nations shall be gathered before
him ; and that he shall separate them as the shepherd separates the
sheep from the goats. Acts 17 : 31 declares that God has ap
pointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness,
by the man whom he hath ordained, " whereof he hath given
assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the
dead."

In Romans 2 : 1 6 Paul declares that God hath appointed a
day in which he will judge the secrets of men " according to my
gospel, by Jesus Christ."

In 2 Corinthians 5 : 10 it is declared that we must all be
made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ. See also
Hebrews 9 : 27, 28; Revelation 20 : 12; John 5 : 22-27; Mat
thew 19 : 28; Luke 22 : 28-30; Revelation 3 : 21.

The fitness of Christ to exercise the authority of final Judge of

[478]

Last Things

men grows out of his twofold relations : to God and to men. He
is the revelation of God to men. God is now dealing with men
in and through him. Men come unto God by him. He is the
Way, the Truth, and the Life for men. What God requires of
men, and what God is willing to bestow upon men comes into the
clearest expression through him. The invisible and eternal God
thus adopts a historical mode of manifestation of himself, his
grace, his holiness, his power. It is fit therefore that the cul
mination of his plan should find expression in the Person of his
Son.

Again, Christ is " a Son of man," as John reports him as saying.
He is Judge of men for this reason. (John 5 : 27.) As man
Christ knows men. He was tempted in all points as men are
tempted, but without sin. (Heb. 4 : 15.) He thus possesses
the knowledge and sympathy required for equitable and just
decisions regarding men.

3. The Subjects. All men are to be judged. There are
Scriptures which suggest also that the evil angels are to be judged.
In Revelation 20 : 12 the dead, " small and great," are repre
sented as standing "before God." All are judged. (See also
2 Peter 2 : 4-9; Jude 6.)

4. The Purpose. The purpose of the final judgment is not the
discovery of character, but its manifestation. As Paul expresses
it: " We must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of
Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body,
according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad "
(2 Cor. 5 : 10). So also in Romans 2 : 5, 6 men are said to
treasure up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath and
revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render
to every man according to his works. They are to give account
of "every idle word" that they shall speak. (Matt. 12 : 36.)
Again, " there is nothing covered up, that shall not be revealed ;
and hid, that shall not be known " (Luke 12 : 2).

From the preceding we may state the purpose as follows : To
judge means, literally, to discriminate, and from this follows the
idea of separate. In judgment God discriminates between the

[479]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

righteous and unrighteous and separates them from each other.
But this is simply to uncover or make manifest what previously
existed in principle. Deeds done in the body are taken as the
criterion of judgment because deeds declare character. The in
ward state is of course presupposed. No secret thing is hidden
from God. The union of men by faith with Christ will be a car
dinal fact which will be recognized. The great " deed," the true
" work of God," is that men believe on Christ. (John 6 : 29.) No
other deed means so much as this. It is the mother deed, the root
principle of all good deeds. All the good deeds which God
approves are in principle the offspring of this. But this is not
a meritorious good work which buys salvation. It is the gift
of God's grace. And all the deeds which spring from it arise
from the same grace. Christians, then, are not saved by works,
but by grace through faith. They are rewarded according to the
use they make of the grace as manifest in deeds.

5. The Necessity of the Judgment. There are those who
object to the idea of a final judgment. They assume that the
biblical pictures of the last day are designed merely to impress
the imagination, and to set forth vividly a principle which is to
be recognized in continuous operation throughout history. " The
world's history is the world's judgment," according to a saying
of Schiller.

Now in reply we may say at once that the principle of judg
ment is in constant operation. In a real sense moral law works
itself out inevitably. But its action is not after the manner of
physical law. Human freedom and sin have greatly complicated
the mechanism of the moral order, if such a phrase be permis
sible. Bodies attract each other by a fixed law. Chemical changes
proceed in ways which may be expressed in exact terms. Matter,
force, and motion are changeless and remorseless in their re
sults under given conditions. If the mind of man could grasp
the physical universe in all its meaning as merely physical and
apart from the actions of free moral beings, and if it could per
form the necessary calculations, it could also predict its exact
condition a thousand years from now. This is because natural

Last Things

law rules in all the forms of matter. But in a realm of free
moral personalities no such mechanical certitude is possible.
Human wills are centers of new initiative. They originate new
energies in the social order. As evil they render it liable to
many complexities and forms of injustice. Only another and
divine will can readjust these disturbed and abnormal relations.
The final judgment is the Christian expression of this fact. We
may say then that judgment is the finality demanded by the
kingdom of God in all its aspects. We note the following :

(1) Judgment is the finality for the conscience. The idea of
a judgment-day arose in the course of history in the religious
life of men as the moral sense was deepened. In the religion of
Israel it attained its highest prechristian form. The conscience
is the witness in man to the immanent moral law of the universe.
Its verdicts in ordinary conduct imply the final verdicts of him
who planted the moral nature in us. Conscience is the moral
glimpse which the soul obtains of the future. Wrong-doing is
accompanied by a forward look upon a fiery judgment. (Heb.
10 : 27.) The moral law written in our nature is a copy of the
eternal moral law written in God's nature. This law immanent
in us implies judgment. A judgment-day means only that that
which is implicit shall become explicit.

(2) Judgment is the finality also for history. That which works
in the individual conscience works in the corporate conscience of
the race. The crimes of nations stand out as clearly in the light
of conscience as do the crimes of individuals. The wrongs which
the innocent suffer when power rules in the place of right fill
the pages of a large part of human history. Posthumous in
fluence is a large part of a man's moral power. His work is not
done when he dies. His deeds live after him, and will live
in history until the new order which follows judgment shall
arise. Heredity and solidarity are forces which must be reckoned
with in the final awards to individuals. So also freedom and
the corporate choice of low ideals and immoral standards must
be applied as principles of judgment in dealing with men in social
groups. The slow progress of the moral ideal in history points

F 2 [ 481 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

to a culmination which shall crystallize the contending forces
of good and evil and bring about their final separation. This is
clear to ordinary human experience. It is even clearer to Chris
tian experience. The redeemed saints in Revelation are repre
sented as calling for the vengeance of God upon evil-doers. Per
haps this moral demand enters character in its perfected form as
it does not now. We are commanded to forgive and to avenge
not ourselves. There is no contradiction here. But the per
fected saints share more completely the divine reaction against
sin. All morally vigorous natures partake of this quality in
large measure. A contemplation of history as a whole deepens
it in every one. A climax which shall bring about a suitable
adjustment seems most appropriate.

(3) Judgment is a finality for the theistic view of the world.
If God is a Person; if he is in moral relations with men, and
men are moral personalities in relations with God; if, in short,
we live in a universe of freedom and obligation, God's vindica
tion of his ways to men calls for a final judgment of affairs. He
cannot consistently ignore the clamor of the human soul for
some sort of understanding of the moral universe. Pantheism re
duces us to the level of things. We are passing phenomena, like
plants and flowers, the product of an eternal substance, or force
without moral dignity. But theism puts us on a higher pedestal.
We reflect the eternal intelligence and moral cravings.

Now if philosophy generalizes the bare facts presented at
any given moment, it gives us a dualism or pluralism of con
tending forces which forever struggle for the mastery. Such a
generalization dethrones God. But if we recognize the pur-
posiveness of the moral sense in us, in Christian experience and
in history, and in the theistic view of the world, we look for
ward to a higher solution. Teleology implies judgment. We may
illustrate by the principles of progress and unity in literature and
art generally. The kingdom of God is like a great drama. It
moves forward to a climax. All the apparently loose ends of the
development are slowly combined and gathered together. The
unity of the whole is seen only in the final outcome. Without the

[482]

Last Things

climax the drama is meaningless. It is mere motion without
progress. The book of Revelation, obscure as it is in some ways,
is nevertheless an expression of the dramatic principle in the
moral kingdom. And it is an expression which cannot be mis
understood. Evil takes many forms. Subdued in one form, it
returns in another. The beast, the false prophet, the evil woman,
the wicked city, appear from stage to stage. The end is victory,
the overthrow of evil, the judgment and separation of the good
and the bad, the descent of the New Jerusalem, the habitation of
God with men.

In conclusion we affirm, therefore, that in God's kingdom
judgment operates constantly as an immanent principle in the
ongoing of history. It expresses itself in a gradual process. But
it also expresses itself in signal events and great climaxes. In
both aspects judgment is in close agreement with the nature of
man and the course of history in other respects. The slow proc
ess followed by the sudden revolution ; the beginning, the ascent
toward a goal, the climax, and then a new beginning, a new ascent,
a new climax. These are familiar processes in history. The
final judgment is the biblical expression of this principle in the
moral kingdom.

IX. FINAL STATES: HEAVEN

The New Testament revelation as to heaven and hell is notable
for a number of things. One is its reserve and restraint. No
answers are given to many curious questions human nature is
prone to ask. Another is the symbolic character of the repre
sentations. Many figures of speech are employed which are
clear enough in the principle involved, but not clear as to the
meaning of the principle in the details of life and conduct. The
revelation is also notable for the moral and spiritual qualities
which are reflected in all the representations and the total absence
of appeal to our lower and selfish nature.

We consider first the revelation as to heaven. It may be
gathered up in the two ideas of environment and character, the
outward and the inward aspects. We consider these in order.

[483]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

As to the environment of the redeemed, language is taxed to
express its beauty and glory. In many Old Testament prophecies
there are glowing pictures of a coming age when nature is to be
renewed, and there is to be a new heaven and a new earth wherein
dwelleth righteousness. (Isa. 65 : 17; 66 : 22.) We have seen
how Paul expresses this thought in his teaching as to the sym
pathy of nature with man's struggles and its final renovation in
harmony with the resurrection and the glorious liberty of God's
children. (Rom. 8 : 18-25.) In the book of Revelation the
most glowing of all portrayals of heaven is under the symbol
of the New Jerusalem, the City of God, which conies down from
heaven to earth. (Rev. 21 : I to 22 : 5.) The background of this
city is " a new heaven and a new earth" (21 : i). From this
we may draw, with a greater or less degree of certainty, the
following inferences: First, heaven will be a place, and not
merely an inward state. This is strongly confirmed by the fact
that Christ himself has a risen and glorified body, and that we
also shall have bodies like unto his; and by his words in John
14 : i, 2, "I go to prepare a place for you." Secondly, we
infer with less certainty that this earth may be the final home
of the redeemed. So far as Scripture sheds light on the locality
of heaven, it points in this direction. The meek "' shall inherit
the earth" (Matt. 5:5). The heavenly city descends to earth.
And yet it is most likely that we shall not be confined to the
earth. An endless future of activity and growth will require a
wide range for our powers. It is quite possible that the physical
universe as a whole will be our heritage. But here we must
speak with proper caution, for there is no explicit declaration to
guide us. Thirdly, we infer that the outward abode of God's
children will be perfectly adapted to their perfected characters.
All the symbols employed to set forth the environment are rich
in moral suggestion. Gold and precious stones to suggest moral
values; white robes to suggest purity; leaves for healing; water
to symbolize life; pillars in a temple to suggest stability of char
acter; crowns to symbolize victory; light to suggest God's pres
ence; a city to suggest an ideal social order; these and many

[484]

Last Things

other symbols bring out all shades of moral perfection. To
emphasize this everything is excluded which is " unclean, or he
that maketh an abomination and a lie" (Rev. 21 : 27).

The inward aspect of heaven is presented in forms which
cover the whole range of human desire and struggle for the
highest and best things. It is man's nature as redeemed, as a
worthy son of God, fulfilled. We may group these teachings
under the following heads : Heaven as Relief, as Reward, as
Realization, as Appreciation, and as endless Growth.

1. Heaven is represented as relief from all the trying and
hard conditions of the earthly life. All sorrow and tears and
mourning, all pain and suffering, all darkness and death, have
passed away. In certain passages of exquisite tenderness God is
represented as dispelling all these things : " God himself shall be
with them, and be their God: and he shall wipe away every tear
from their eyes ; and death shall be no more ; neither shall there
be mourning, nor crying, nor pain any more" (Rev. 21 : 3, 4).
This is the negative aspect of heaven. It is designed to set forth
the fulfilment of human destiny in relief from all the con
ditions which make life hard to bear. But this relief comes
through the direct ministry of God in a way which immeasurably
deepens gratitude and inspires to love and devotion.

2. Heaven is reward. This is the positive side of heaven. In
various passages in the book of Revelation the idea of reward
appears. So also in passages in the Gospels and Epistles. Re
ward will be according to works. From this it follows that not
all rewards will be the same. In the parable of the nobleman
who left ten pounds with ten servants (Luke 19 : 12-27) we
learn that reward corresponds to fidelity and industry. The
rewards were ten cities and five cities in the case of two of the
servants. And the man who had kept his pound in a napkin
\vas deprived of what he had. Again, in the parable of the
Talents (Matt. 25 : 14-30) the rewards correspond to natural
gifts or ability. This is made clear in the record in the words
that the " Lord gave to each according to his several ability "
(ver. 15). So also in the parable of the Pennies (Matt. 20 :

[ 485 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

1-16) rewards are according to opportunity. The eleventh-hour
servants receive an equal amount with the others. The lack of
opportunity alone prevented them from rendering a service equal
to the others. So also in i Corinthians 3 : 14, 15 Paul repre
sents some as saved " as through fire " because they do not render
faithful service. The principle of degrees in rewards and punish
ments is clearly established in the New Testament teaching. In
the second and third chapters of Revelation the rewards of heaven
are set forth in various forms. They are all promised to the
victors : " unto him that overcometh." Among these promises are
the following: " To eat of the tree of life " (Rev. 2:7); victory
over the ''second death" (2 : n); the privilege of eating the
"hidden manna" (2 : 17); "authority over the nations" (2 :
26) ; to "be arrayed in white garments" (3 : 5) ; to be made
" a pillar in the temple of my God " (3 : 12) ; to sit with Christ
on his throne. (3 : 21.) Rewards are set forth in many forms in
accord with the various forms of human struggle.

3. Heaven is realization. By this is meant the completion of
all the activities and aspirations of the spirit which were unreal
ized before, self-realization in all spiritual capacities and rela
tionships. The thwarted and defeated life, which was never
theless morally and spiritually victorious, comes to its own.
The " white stone " which Christ gives, and which has on it the
" new name written, which no one knoweth but he that re-
ceiveth it," probably implies the full realization of personality.
(Rev. 2 : 17.) The old name does not match the new character.

So also in all the forms of aspiration there comes realization:
fulness of knowledge (i Cor. 13 : 8-10) ; ideal service (Rev.
22 : 3, 4) ; ideal worship (Rev. 21 : 22) ; perfect communion with
God (Rev. 21 : 3) ; perfect fellowship in an ideal society (Heb.
12 : 22, 23; Rev. 7 : 4-11) ; realized holiness of character (Rev.
3 : 5; 21 : 27) ; fulness of life (Matt. 25 : 46) ; association and
fellowship with Jesus Christ. (John 14 : 3; Rev. 3 : 21 ; 5 : 12,
J3; 7 " J7-) Christ is represented as the central figure in the
portrayals of heaven. His relations to us as Redeemer will bind
him to us forever in most intimate bonds of union and fellowship.

[486]

Last Things

4. Heaven is appreciation. If we search for the spiritual qual
ities most characteristic of heaven, one of those most central
and important is appreciation. Of course this means love. But it
is a particular aspect of love which justifies emphasis. Jesus said
that he who receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet would
receive a prophet's reward. (Matt. 10 : 41.) He means not the
reward which a prophet bestows, but which the prophet will re
ceive. Appreciation of a prophet raises one to the prophetic
level, makes one potentially a prophet. So also a service rendered
in the name of a disciple evinces appreciation of discipleship, and
will be rewarded accordingly. The words of Christ at the
judgment scene occasioned surprise to the disciples. They valued
the service they had rendered less highly than the Master himself
because he appreciated its moral quality better than they. (Matt.
25 : 37-40.) In welcoming his own there are no words of blame
or reproof. He knows their motive. As faithful, he accepts
them for what they strove to be and do, not for what they achieved
alone. So also on the other side. In heaven they sing the song
of Moses and the Lamb. They appreciate Christ as worthy of
all praise and honor. (Rev. 5 : 9-12.) Crowns are placed on the
brows of the victors ; but the victors cast the crowns down at the
feet of him who bestowed them. (Rev. 4 : 10, n.) From the
preceding we may say that the rewards of heaven will be on the
level of our spiritual appreciations. The higher the range of the
things we appreciate and value, the higher our place in the
scale of moral worth.

5. Heaven is endless growth. Paul declares that we know
in part, but then we shall know as we are known, (i Cor. 13 : 12.)
He prays that Christians may be " strong to apprehend with all
the saints what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth,
and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge " (Eph.
3 : 18, 19). He concludes with the prayer that they may "be
rilled unto all the fulness of God" (ver. 14). This standard of
knowledge calls for endless growth. The nature of mind and
spirit implies ever-enlarging capacity. Mental activity is im
possible apart from a certain degree of enlargement. Other-

i: 487 1

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

wise it becomes, under the law of habit, a sort of instinct, which
becomes automatic and tends to the brute level. Grace opens
every part of our nature and intensifies every craving for the
higher realities.

Some have objected to the idea of endless growth in heaven
on the ground that it is inconsistent with moral perfection. A
perfect being cannot become more perfect, it is argued. It is an
error, therefore, to think of heaven as a place of indefinite growth.
The reply is that the objection mistakes the nature of moral per
fection. True moral perfection is not static. It is not an attain
ment which suddenly comes to an end and becomes fixed and final
like a crystal. It does include freedom from sin, and spontaneous
conformity to the eternal law of right. The image of Christ is
inwrought. The soul is perfectly indwelt by the Redeemer
through the Holy Spirit. But it never becomes immobile and
fixed. It unfolds and expands. The true ideal of personal spir
itual beings is that of a life which is ever active, yet ever rest
ing in activity; which is ever satisfied and blessed, yet ever
aspiring; which is ever attaining, yet ever hoping for greater
attainment. " Now abideth faith, hope, love." " In hope were
we saved" (Rom. 8 : 24). Hope is an abiding element of the
redeemed life, and this implies endless growth and attainment.

THE FINAL STATES: HELL

We may sum up the scriptural teachings as to hell in four
general statements :

i. Hell is the negation or absence in the soul of all that is
meant by heaven. As heaven is the fruition of all right desire, so
hell is the frustration of all such desire. Heaven is the fulfilment
of love. Hell is the fulfilment of selfishness. Heaven is the
ripened fruit of the regenerate life which has been created anew
in Christ. Hell is the reverse of all that is implied in Christian
experience. As moral and spiritual causes begin to operate by
faith, which in the end produce the essential elements of heaven,
so also moral and spiritual causes operate in the soul through

[488]

Last Things

unbelief to produce the essential elements of hell. The soul of
man is constituted for obedience to the moral law. It is made
for fellowship with God. It is patterned with a view to right
eousness. Faith is the only normal relation of man to God.

Now unbelief separates men from God, destroys fellowship,
paralyzes the power required for obedience, and sets up an
antagonism between the soul and God and between the soul and
the universe of God. The wicked man finds himself thus in the
strange position of being in God's universe, and yet he is neither
God nor God's servant. There is no provision for naturalizing
him in the realm where he must live. The result is endless war
between him and God and all the forces of God's world. The
moral and spiritual outcome is hell. It is the only rational
outcome of unbelief and sin.

2. The spiritual truths involved in the doctrine of hell find
expression in many forms in Scripture. For the most part they
are figurative or symbolic expressions and must be so interpreted.
But this does not imply that only the spiritual state is involved
in the biblical doctrine of hell. Resurrection bodies of the wicked
forbid this. No doubt the inward and spiritual condition is
fundamental. But the outward and the inward agree here as
in the teaching as to heaven. There are also literal passages.
And we may be sure the figures employed in the others fall short
rather than go beyond the reality of hell. Figures of speech here
do not annul the dread fulness of the doom of the wicked. We
note a few New Testament teachings. The Old Testament has
no developed doctrine of hell. Only the dim beginnings are found
there. In Matthew 25 : 41 Jesus says to the wicked: "Depart
from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the
devil and his angels." He seems thus to imply that men damn
themselves to suffering in the place prepared not for them, but for
others. In a real sense a man makes his own hell. In another
passage Jesus speaks of the sufferings of the lost in hell, " where
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9 :
48). Again, he says the wicked are cast into "outer darkness "
(Matt. 8 : 12). Paul describes the wicked as enduring the

[489]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

"wrath of God" (Rom. 2 : 5). In Revelation 21 : 8 the final
state of the wicked is described as the " second death," which is
explained to mean that the wicked have their part " in the lake
that burneth with fire and brimstone."

3. The third statement is that as there are degrees in the
rewards of the righteous, so also there are degrees in the punish
ment of the unrighteous. The Judge of all the earth will do right.
We need have no misgivings as to this point. The degree of
light men possess; the degree of fidelity to that light; the use
of the opportunities and powers with which they are blessed;
the circumstances which condition their lives; in a word, every
fact which has any bearing upon human guilt and responsibility
will be considered. It follows from this that not all the wicked
will suffer the same degree of punishment. The doctrine of
degrees in rewards and punishments is one of the most clearly
revealed doctrines of Scripture. We have seen it in its applica
tion to the rewards of the righteous. It is equally clear as to the
penalties of the unrighteous. In Luke 12 : 47, 48 we read : " And
that servant who knew his Lord's will, and made not ready, nor
did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes ; but
he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be
beaten with few stripes." One of the most impressive and solemn
sayings of Jesus is in Matthew n : 21-24, where he pronounces
the woes upon Chorazin and Bethsaida and Capernaum because
they sinned against the light. He declares that in the day of
judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon, and even
for Sodom, than for these cities. According to light and truth
are responsibility and penalty. In Romans 4 : 15 Paul says,
" where there is no law, neither is there transgression." Here
he is stating a principle rather than describing the actual state of
men. For he says elsewhere that men " show the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness
therewith" (Rom. 2 : 15). So also he writes, " For as many
as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the
law" (Rom. 2 : 12). In verse 6 of the same chapter he refers
to God " who will render to every man according to his works."

Last Things

4. Fourthly, the doom of sinners of all degrees of guilt is end
less. In Mark 3 : 29 Jesus declares that the sin " against the
Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness" because, as he adds, the
man who commits it is guilty of an " eternal sin." The " undying
worm " and the " quenchless fire " in the passage already cited
point in the same direction. So also the contrast between the
fates of the wicked and righteous at the judgment shows that the
continuity of the one corresponds with that of the other. It is
" eternal punishment " in one case and " eternal life " in the
other. (Matt. 25 : 46.)

X. THEORIES WHICH DENY ETERNAL PUNISHMENT

Two theories have been advanced in the past which continue
in the present, denying the endlessness of future punishment.
One of these is annihilationism, the other restorationism. We
consider them in this order.

Annihilationism

Annihilationism holds that the soul of man is not naturally
immortal. It becomes immortal only through union with Christ
by faith and the reception of the divine life imparted by the Holy
Spirit. It is also known as the theory of conditional immortality.
Apart from the divine life received through union with Christ,
the soul, on account of indwelling sin, gradually deteriorates
and sooner or later ceases to exist. It is annihilated.

The theory has been held in several forms. One is that at
death the soul ceases to exist. Another, that on account of the
gift of Christ and the offer of salvation, men become respon
sible in a new way for their disobedience, and that they are
kept in being until the day of judgment, when they are cast into
the lake of fire and brimstone. A third form of the theory
puts the cessation of being into the distant future after the final
judgment, thus allowing time for the suffering of the full penalty
of sins.

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

The chief biblical arguments urged in favor of the theory
are the passages which refer to the doom of the wicked by means
of such words as death, destruction, perdition, abolishing, perish
ing, and the word lost. (The words are phtheiro, apollumi,
katargeomai, thanatos, and their cognates.)

It is not necessary to cite all the passages relied upon by the
advocates of the annihilation doctrine. In 2 Thessalonians I : 9
Paul, referring to the penalty coming upon the wicked, says,
" who shall suiter punishment, even eternal destruction from
the. face of the Lord, and from the glory of his might." (See
also 2 Peter 3:7.) This passage represents in a general way
the class of Scripture teachings cited in support of the theory.
It is claimed that " destruction " here means annihilation. Similar
passages make use of the other words referred to: abolish, per
dition, perish, death.

Now it is not denied that if there were no other general
teaching of Scripture to refute this view, and if we were re
quired by the meaning of these words to define them as annihila
tion, there would be good ground for the view. But neither
of these claims can be made good. Take the word " destroy "
in another passage. "If any man destroyeth the temple of
God, him shall God destroy" (i Cor. 3 : 17). Can this by any
sort of construction mean, "If any man annihilate the temple
of God, him will God annihilate " ? Consider also the word
" lost." Jesus refers to the " lost sheep of the house of Israel "
in Matthew 10 : 6. Can he mean the " annihilated " sheep?

The reply to the annihilation doctrine then is as follows:

i. It gives a meaning to a certain group of words in certain
Scriptures which cannot possibly be applied to them in other
passages. This is true of every one of the words relied upon
to support the annihilation theory. Death in Scripture means
the absence of life, and as applied to the soul it means the.
absence of fellowship with God. Perdition means the moral
state resulting from this separation from God and his holiness.
Destroy means to overcome or render inoperative. In the
passages cited it means punishment in the form of banishment

[4921

Last Things

from God's presence. When Paul refers to the time when
death shall be destroyed or abolished, he means made inoperative
as a power in God's kingdom. The word lost means separated
from God and without power of self-recovery. In no passage
does any of these words mean annihilate where it refers to the
future of the wicked.

2. The teachings of the Old Testament are against the view.
In the Old Testament the departed are not annihilated. They are
in Sheol, the realm of the dead. They live a shadowy existence
there. But they are still conscious. They do not cease to exist.
It is abundantly clear from what we have already seen that the
idea of annihilation of the soul at death is foreign to the Old
Testament.

3. The very explicit teaching of the New Testament as to
the fate of the wicked disproves the annihilation theory. The
phrases employed forbid it. " Their worm dieth not " ; " the fire
is not quenched " (Mark 9 : 48). " And they shall be tormented
day and night forever and ever" (Rev. 20 : 10). These and
other similar passages are fatal to the theory.

4. Again, the idea of annihilation is a metaphysical conception
which is foreign to the Old and New Testaments alike. It is
doubtful whether any passage of Scripture can be cited in any
connection whatever favorable to the idea. The biblical writers
dealt with all matters from the practical and religious point
of view. All speculative theories as to the component parts of
the soul and the possibility of its disintegration or its passing
into nothingness are alien to the Scriptures. &nnihilationism
is a product of metaphysical speculation, not of biblical teaching.

5. Annihilationism is contrary to all the rational and moral
considerations which favor the immortality of the soul. The
common belief of mankind, the desires and implications within
man of a larger life; in a word, all the arguments which have
been urged in favor of natural are against the conception of con
ditional immortality.

6. Annihilationism changes radically our conception of the
dignity and grandeur of human nature. Scripture teaches, and

[4931

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

men have believed, that man is made in God's image, a moral
and spiritual personality; that this nature lifts him above the
level of the brutes and gives him a naturally immortal existence.
Annihilationism robs him of this dignity and brings him down
to the brute level. This is true under any view as to the process
of annihilation. This is conceived of as the result of the disin
tegrating power of sin itself; or as the result of the working of
the evolutionary law of the survival of the fittest and the de
struction of the unfit; or as the immediate act of God on
account of the guilt of sin. The first view is untrue to facts.
Sin does not destroy the soul. Increasing sin often goes with
increasing power to sin. The second view clearly implies a lower
view of man than the Bible teaches. The third implies that God
ceases to treat the sinner as a moral being with whom he deals
on moral principles, but resorts rather to sheer omnipotence to
exterminate one who refused to obey.

7. Annihilationism makes it difficult to understand the incar
nation. How can we think of Christ's entrance into a form of
life in the incarnation which was in itself destined to perish?
Did he come to redeem humanity or to reconstitute it ? There is
no evidence in the New Testament that he reconstituted human
nature. He recreated it morally and spiritually in his own image.
He did not make of man a new kind of creature, although he did
make of him a new creature through divine grace.

In conclusion, we are not without appreciation of the moral and
spiritual problems which annihilationism is designed to meet. All
men have felt the pressure of the questions which relate to the
fate of the wicked in the future life. But loyalty to the highest
interests of mankind forbids that we should permit our desire or
our protest against a given conclusion to be converted into a
dogma with no better support than a vague metaphysical specu
lation.

Restorationism

Another theory as to the future state is known as restora-
tionism. It has been held in several forms. One is that death

[494]

Last Things

itself produces a change of character which results in the salvation
of all. This form of the theory is rarely advocated by any one
to-day. Another maintains that the gospel is preached to the
disembodied spirits of those who die without hearing the gospel,
and that opportunity is thus given for repentance and return to
God, and that this second probation ends at the judgment, when
the final awards are declared. A third form extends the second
probation into the indefinite future. It maintains that suffering
and loss will lead men to turn from their sins, or else that God
will use stronger means of persuasion than were afforded in this
life. Here again there is divergence of view. Some hold that
as a result of this extended probation some will be saved while
others will persist in sin and be finally lost. The Universalists,
on the other hand, hold that in the end all individuals will be
saved.

In support of the above theory two classes of argument have
been employed. The first claims a considerable group of Scrip
ture passages. The second builds upon inferences from the
nature of God and man and the moral kingdom.

i. We note first the Scripture passages. Here we do not at
tempt to deal with these exhaustively. The more pertinent and
important will answer our purpose. It is urged that the word
" eternal " (aionios) does not mean eternal duration in statements
referring to future retribution. (Matt. 25 : 41.) It means, rather,
lacking in the quality of the eternal or divine life. Again, in
John 12 : 32 Jesus declares, " And I, if I be lifted up from the
earth, will draw all men unto myself," implying that all men
would be saved. Again, Paul says in I Corinthians 15 : 22, " For
as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
This is taken as meaning universal salvation. In I Timothy 2 : 4
he refers to God our Saviour, " who would have all men to be
saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth," and in I Timothy
4 : 10 he refers to the " living God, who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of them that believe."

There is also a group of great sayings in the Epistles to the
Philippians, Ephesians, and Colossians which are cited in support

[4951

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

of restorationism. In Philippians 2 : 9-11 reference is made to
the exaltation of Christ, " That in the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things
under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." In Ephesians
i : 10 God's purpose is stated to be " to sum up all things in
Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth."
And in Colossians I : 20 Paul declares that it was the good
pleasure of the Father " through him to reconcile all things unto
himself; having made peace through the blood of his cross;
through him, / say, whether things upon earth, or things in the
heavens."

There are also two passages in the First Epistle of Peter
which have been held to teach a doctrine of a Hades ministry of
Christ. In i Peter 3 : 18-20 the apostle refers to Christ as
" being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit ; in
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, that
aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited
in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing," etc. So also
in i Peter 4 : 6 reference is made to a preaching of the gospel
to " the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men
in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

In reply to the restorationist interpretation of the above pas
sages the following is to be considered :

It is admitted that the Greek word aionios, translated " eter
nal," does sometimes have a qualitative meaning in the New
Testament, especially in John's writings, as in John 17 : 3, " This
is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God,
and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." But this
is not the original or inclusive, but rather a derived meaning which
arose late in the history of the word. One quality of " eternal
life " is that it never ends; this, combined with its divine quality,
makes it "eternal life." Thus the qualitative sense does not
exclude, but rather requires the quantitative. It means endless
duration. In 2 Corinthians 4 : 18 the eternal or lasting is con
trasted with the temporal or transient. In Matthew 25 : 46 the

[496]

Last Things

endlessness of " punishment " and of " life " are expressed by 'the
same term. There is thus no possible way of excluding the idea
of endlessness from the meaning of the word.

The passage in John 12 : 32 does not represent Jesus as de
claring that he will save all men, but only that he will " draw "
them. The context shows that the inquiring Greeks were in his
mind, and the most natural interpretation is that he would draw
not only Jews, but Gentiles as well, when lifted up upon the cross.

In I Corinthians 15 : 22 the "all" in Paul's statement prob
ably refers only to the class about which he is speaking, be
lievers in Christ. The meaning is that the relation between
Adam and his descendants is analogous to that between Christ
and his followers. In any case the passage can scarcely mean
for men generally more than a being made alive in the resur
rection. Paul is discussing the resurrection, not the reception
of life from Christ through faith.

The two passages in I Timothy 2 : 4 and 4 : 10 express the
good will of God toward all mankind. God's wish or desire ex
tends to all. But the attitude of men toward the gospel con
ditions its realization. In the second passage Paul says that
God is " the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe."
By this he shows that God's universal desire is conditioned by
man's faith. This is in harmony with the uniform New Testa
ment teaching.

The three passages cited from Philippians, Ephesians, and
Colossians all refer to the universe as a whole rather than to
individuals. They present different aspects of Christ's work in its
final result. These supplement each other, and together they
answer a number of questions which naturally arise in Chris
tian thought about last things. In Philippians Christ is declared
to be universal Lord. To him every knee shall bow, of things
in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. He will have no rival
in authority and power. The reference is to " things," however,
in a broad general sense, not to persons. In Ephesians he is
represented as the unifying bond of all things. God brings to
a head or recapitulates all things in him. The parts of the

2 G [ 497 ]

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

universe are conceived of as scattered. He reunites them. All
things are thus summed up or headed up in him. In Colossians
the same general reference is made. But here Christ is repre
sented as the Mediator, through whom the universal work of
reconciliation takes place. But the reference again is general.
All that is in disorder shall be restored to order. The resultant
order in all its parts will conform to God's will for those parts.
All this is to be achieved through Jesus and his cross.

The passages in the First Epistle of Peter cannot be dealt with
at length. They have been the subject of irreconcilable differences
of opinion. Men usually construe them according to their pre
possessions. The language is so obscure and complicated that a
satisfactory exegesis is almost impossible. But among the many
interpretations of I Peter 3 : 18-20 that which understands it as
a reference to the preincarnate activity of Christ in warning
sinners in the time of Noah seems the most natural. The other
passage seems to refer to those Christians who had died, to whom
the gospel was preached during their earthly life.

In concluding this reply to the restorationist interpretation of
the New Testament, two or three general statements should be
made. One is that in the case of all the passages cited the
interpretation is directly in conflict with many other explicit teach
ings of the New Testament. The words of Jesus in Matthew
25 : 46 expressly contradict it. Again, it is to be noted that none
of the passages contains a definite and unquestionable support
for the restorationist doctrine. The result is obtained by in
ference, not by acceptance of a plain meaning. If there were
no other New Testament teaching on the subject these inferences
might seem valid. But they introduce serious contradictions of
Paul by himself as well as of other New Testament writers. And
finally, some of the passages, if made to teach the salvation of all
individual men, would necessarily include also the devil and bad
angels. The language is exceedingly comprehensive. It can easily
be understood as we have interpreted it, but an idea entirely for
eign to the biblical writers is introduced if the devil and his
angels are to be included among the redeemed.

[498]

Last Things

2. The second general argument for restorationism is based
upon inferences from the nature of God, of man, and of the
moral kingdom. We note first the inference from God's nature.

It is said that God is love, and that love can never rest content
while any are lost; that God is fatherly toward all, and that his
impulse to bless will lead him to find a way to save men, even
from future torment. It is also urged that punishment is merely
corrective. There is no vindicatory or merely retributive element
in it. So also it has been urged that eternal punishment for
finite sin is unjust. Thus the nature of God and of punishment
forbids eternal suffering.

Again, the argument is based on an inference from man's
nature. Man is free. His will never becomes fixed in a way
which is unchangeable. Freedom thus means an indeterminate
will. If this be so, it follows that character does not necessarily
crystallize so that the will cannot by a new choice change it. It
is inferred that future sufferings will surely lead sinful men to
make a new choice of God and holiness. A similar inference
is drawn from man's rational nature. He is a reasonable being.
He is bound to respond favorably to light and truth when these
are presented to him. It is entirely irrational for a man to persist
in sin. It must follow that the new knowledge which men will
acquire in the future, and the new persuasiveness which a loving
God will employ, will surely lead to repentance.

Another inference is drawn from the nature of God's king
dom. It is said that an eternal hell involves a dualism, or moral
contradiction inconsistent with the administration of his kingdom
by a holy and loving God, and that in the interest of unity alone
the sovereign God must find ways to abolish hell.

In reply to these arguments we consider briefly some of the
details, and then present some more general considerations in
reply.

First, in reply to the inference from God's love and eternal im
pulse to bless, we must not overlook the uniform representations
of the New Testament that an element in the problem is always
man's attitude to the gracious appeal of God. We are not per-

[4991

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

mitted to take God's love as the only and absolute factor and to
deduce conclusions from this alone. The unchangeableness of
God's love is of course a great truth. But we must not think of
it as if it were just another name for God's omnipotence. The
outcome of his love in relation to men is conditioned by their
attitude toward that love. He deals with us as moral beings,
responsible and free. This statement contains the answer also to
the claim that punishment is never retributive, but always and
only corrective. There is a retributive element in punishment, as
we have seen earlier in this treatise. But, assuming for the
moment that it is only corrective, it does not follow that it will
always prove efficacious. Under this view, as under the other,
man as a free personal being might forever resist the corrective
suffering. Corrective discipline is not a certain cure for the
wicked will. We have all seen many instances of its failure.

As to the injustice of an infinite punishment for a finite sin, this
is an incorrect statement of the fact. Sinners continue to sin in
the life to come; punishment simply keeps pace with the sin. If
the sin should cease, the punishment would cease. Eternal pun
ishment for the incorrigibly sinful, therefore, follows not from
the fact of a finite earthly sin, but from the endless or immortal
existence of the sinner.

As to the argument based on man's volitional and rational
nature we reply that in both respects the view is erroneous.
Will is not so indeterminate as the argument claims. It is the
expression of the character. Character tends ever to become
fixed. Acts are cumulative in their effect upon character. Other
wise character, or stability of the moral nature, would be im
possible. Every act would be an absolutely new beginning and
also ending. There would be no moral gains which we could
retain. Life would be a treadmill in its moral endeavor. Under
this theory of the will the redeemed also would be ever in danger
of a new fall. Heaven would be no more secure than hell, be
cause character would be incapable of becoming stable. A man
could never become a pillar in the temple of God, according to
the promise. (Rev. 3 : 12.)

[500]

Last Things

The inference from man's rational nature is also misleading.
Man is a reasonable being. But he does not always follow the
light he has. Frequently the reason is convinced when the will
continues to resist. So also the reason is often convinced long
after the will has lost the disposition or purpose to choose the
right.

The inference that an eternal hell is inconsistent with God's
reign, and involves an irreconcilable dualism in his kingdom, is
of very doubtful value. Evil certainly exists now in very
aggravated forms. Yet we do not on that account assume an
irreconcilable contradiction in God's rule. What is to-day may
be forever. In a word, the problem of evil is a present problem.
It is difficult at best. We can only understand it in part. But
we launch the ship of our speculation on a very dangerous sea if
we prejudge the future by a seeming contradiction, when the
same apparent contradiction confronts us every day.

There are several general considerations which we now present
in reply to the restoration theory.

(1) The first is to recall the teaching of Christ himself. No
other voice has ever spoken with the note of authority possessed
by him in regard to final states. And yet he is most explicit
and most clear on this supreme matter. The language which he
employs, as already set forth, shows the irrevocableness of the
awards to the righteous and wicked in the future life. The
parable of Dives and Lazarus, if there were no other word
from Christ, makes the point clear that there is an impassable
gulf fixed between the two classes after death. It is surely safe
to follow Christ in his teaching on this momentous matter. The
general tenor of the New Testament is in agreement with his
word. Let us not lose sight of this.

(2) The question of an eternal hell is ultimately a question
of human freedom. God cannot make bad men happy. They
must renounce their badness by their own free choice. Com
plete happiness is the fruit of moral perfection. And moral
perfection cannot be forced upon men. It must be chosen.
God's grace may and does aid men. But it cannot compel them.

[Soil

The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression

Men's capacity for resisting God is practically unlimited. We
may of course assume that God cannot remain content in the
presence of eternal suffering, and that he must find ways to
overcome man's rebellion; in a word, that he must abolish hell.
But we then face a worse alternative. We must then assume
that man's freedom has always been merely apparent, and never
real; that man's capacity for self-determination and self-direc
tion has been an illusion. Thus the moral dignity and grandeur
of human nature pass away. We are simply puppets in the hands
of omnipotence, not free personal beings in moral relations with
the infinite Person. That which seemed to be the supreme quality
in our obedience in God's eyes was our free choice of him and
his service. But now this turns out to be not our own act, but
God's compulsory act in and upon us. We are no longer men, but
things. God would thus sacrifice our freedom and moral dig
nity to his own selfishness, that is, because he could not endure
the sight of hell. The existence of hell involves an eternal sacri
fice on God's part. But this means only that God is eternal love.
If then men are to be left free, the possibility of an eternal hell
always remains until men are confirmed in holiness. The ulti
mate problem then is not: Why does God permit hell? It is
rather this: Why did he make men free? Of course sinners
who become incorrigible in sin are not free in the highest sense.
But their freedom is real nevertheless. The highest freedom
includes three elements: self-determination, self-direction, and
self-realization. All men have the first and second elements.
Only the redeemed in Christ have the third. Self-realization
means finding one's destiny in Jesus Christ. It means fulfilling
God's ideal for the life. This is the highest freedom. Men
who disobey are self-determined and self-directed. But here
they stop. They pervert the end of their being. Hell is the
monument they build to their own selfishness and disobedience.

(3) The nature of sin enforces the same truth. Character does
tend to become fixed. It gathers momentum. It bears the will
along as a part of itself. Yet it is the expression of repeated
acts of the will. Thoughts become purposes, and purposes

[502]

Last Things

become acts, and acts become habits, and habits become char
acters, and characters become destinies. The unpardonable sin
probably means that the moral potentialities of the soul are ex
hausted. Character has become fixed in evil. Jesus saw this
with divine insight and declared it.

All morally sensitive souls are profoundly interested in the
problem of the final destiny of men. No one with any ap
preciation of the issues of life can be indifferent to the subject,
and yet it is quite possible to adopt an attitude which may be
injurious to the highest interests of mankind. Sinful men
are eager to find a means of escape from the consequences of
wrong-doing. They easily put a carnal interpretation upon any
form of deliverance stated in external terms. Some of those
who teach restorationism in ways which seek to safeguard moral
character play directly into the hands of the selfish and carnal.
Their theories are usually born of a desire which may be worthy
in itself, but which builds upon insufficient foundations. If we
cannot follow Christ here, where can we follow him?

We conclude with two or three facts which bring some relief
as we contemplate the world of future penalties.

Christians to-day with practical unanimity hold that infants
dying in infancy are saved. This means about one-third of the
human race. Again we recur to the fact that there are degrees
of penalty. Men are not to be punished equally, although all
future punishment will be endless. But of one thing we may be
sure: God is absolutely just and loving. We often forget this
in thinking of the future. We forget that punishments differ,
and imagine all suffering exactly the same penalty. Along with
this we imagine that God arbitrarily casts men into hell. Both
ideas are erroneous. There will never be the slightest departure
from exact right and justice in any of God's dealings with sin
ners. We may leave the issues with him. But all that we know
of the future life lays upon us the obligation to labor with zeal
and earnestness for the coming of his eternal kingdom with its
eternal awards.

5031

INDEX

A

Ability or inability, natural and moral,
294.

Absolute: as theological term, 221; the,
282.

Adolescence: importance of, in conver
sion, 59, 88; and regeneration, 381.

Adoption: God's act in redemption, 52,
261; a fruit of faith, 393; defined, 401.

Affection, 239.

Agnosticism: denies knowledge of ultimate
reality, 108; at variance with expe
rience, 109; denies revelation, 138; set
aside by work of righteous love, 175;
makes finite and infinite mutually ex
clusive, 191; Sanday's theory of in
carnation a form of, 200; theoretical
justification of, 202; toward Trinity,
206, 208.

Alcott, Bronson, 328.

Ancestor-worship, 95.

Angel of the Covenant, 278.

Angels: reality of, 276; sons of God, 401;
among the redeemed, 498.

Animism, 36, 95.

Annihilationism, 491.

Anselm, 131, 306, 330.

Anthropological proof of the existence of
God, 130.

Anthropomorphism, 7gf., 96, 216.

Antichrist, 464, 469.

Antinomianism and sanctification, 427.

Apocalyptic: order of events, 449; calcu
lations and speculations, 472.

Apollinarians, 177.

Apologetics: as related to method of this
book, 7f.; limitations of, 10; helped by
defining religion, 16; and the definition
of God, 215.

Apostles, medium of revelation, 142, 151.

Apostles' Creed, 42.

Arians, 177.

Arminianism, 5, 434.

Ascension of Christ, 44, 47, 158, 163, 360.

Asceticism, 421.

Astronomy, 182.

Athenians, 94.

Atonement: by death of Christ, 20, 44;
self-disclosure of God, 23; finds climax

in Christian teaching, 99; and meaning
of universe, 193; exercise of love in,
248; and universalism, 302; discussed,
304-337; fallacies about the, 311; ex
position of biblical doctrine of, 313;
and the divine immanence, 320; vital
and legal elements in, 322; Godward
and mamvard reference of, 330; a dy
namic in experience, 334; attributes of
God in, 335; extent of, 336; and sov
ereignty, 338; limited, 339; and world
wide grace, 341 ; ground of justifica
tion, 398.

Attributes of God, alleged conflict between,
309, 3"-

Augustine, 3, 331, 461.

Backsliding, 378.

Baptism: of Jesus, 155, 157, 204; of the
Spirit, 360; of infants, 375; and regen
eration, 383; as a symbol, 4_'7.

Beelzebub, 277.

Benevolence, 239, 247.

Bergson, 192.

Bible: a source of theology, 2f. ; author
ity of, i of. ; point of contact between,
and psychology, 36; literary source of
revelation, 41, 145; and inspiration,
143, 147; and search for truth, 149;
meets all requirements of religious life,
151; infallibility of, 152.

Biology, 104, 182, 257, 354.

Blessing, second, 432.

Blewett, 195.

Bowne, 195.

Brahmanism, 137.

Brain, human and animal, contrasted, 256.

Brown, W. A., 277.

Buddhism, 103, 137, 388.

Bushnell, 333-

Calling, defined, 365.
Calvinism, 5, 339, 433f'
Campbell, McLeod, 309.

[505]

Index

Canon of Scripture, 149.

Catholic Church: requires implicit faith,
40, 142, 376; and life through sacra
ments, 362; teaching of, on justifica
tion, 394.

Causality, as principle in account of uni
verse, 223.

Causation: in philosophy of personalism,
113; physical and free, 125, 163, 171.
179, 193, 251, 258, 270.

Certainty: kind of, required in the re
ligious life, 38; arising from Christian
knowledge, 72; degrees of, 74; objec
tions to Christian, 75; Christian, re
ligiously conditioned, So.

Chalcedon, 178.

Charismatic gifts, 204.

Chemistry, 182, 273.

Christian, the: ethical ideal of, 423; fu
ture state of, 460.

Christianity: as a religion, if.; essence
of, 6; a power in the soul, 8; welcome^
demand of science for reality, 9; com
bines objective source and subjective
experience, 1 1 ; contrasted with mysti
cism, 14; a missionary religion, 17;
does not require mathematical demon
stration, 25; perfects all valid elements
in other religions, 40, 95, 103, 150; a
religion of law, 312; not a form of Ju
daism, 375.

Christology of Paul, 159.

Church, the: through Christ, believer
identified with, 165, 169; a means in
salvation, 346, 363, 409; and the king
dom, 425.

Civil government, 426.

Clark, W. N., 215.

Clement, 3.

Comforter, 205, 231, 300, 360.

Commission, Great, 188, 240.

Companion, the Great, 5/f., 63, 121, 300.

Comparative religion, 40, 48, 94, 102,
168, 217.

Compassion, 239.

Complacency, 239.

Comtc, i2f.

Conscience, 133, 246, 258, 267, 345, 357.
384, 442, 481.

Consciousness, natural and regenerate,
6of., 65, 69.

Consecration, devotement to God. 418.

Conversion: beginning of Christian ex
perience, 18, 53; child, 59; varieties of,
59. 76, 87, 368, 438; false, 78; Chris
tian consciousness in, 86; divine energy
in, 89; and ethical ideal, 91; of Paul,
159; through divine initiative, 344; de

fined, 377; and baptism, 384; renewed
experience of, 396.

Conviction of sin, 366.

Cosmological argument for existence of
God, 124.

Covenant: between God and Israel, 237,
431, 445; sin a breach of, 289; rela
tion in Adam, 293; the new, 419.

Creation: doctrine of, 100; Christ me
dium of, 1 60; and redemption, 182:
outgoing of righteous love, 187;
spheres of, 241; defined, 251; imme
diate, of souls, 262.

Creeds: as sources of religious knowledge,
40, 48; and doctrine of the Trinity, 71.

Cross, the: in relation to ethics, 92; in
relation to the incarnation, 190; cen
tral Christian conception, 195; and the
work of the Spirit, 204; and moral
influence theory, 309; act of Christ on,
beginning of a vital process, 335.

Cyprian, 461.

Day of the Lord, 445, 455, 468.

Dead: the righteous, state of, 460; the
unrighteous, state of, 462.

Death: of Christ, 238, 303, 308, 314, 322;
ethical-mystical, 293, 321, 418, 427;
penalty of sin, 297, 3i8f., 458; con
quest of, and union with Christ, 415;
as a sleep, 461; absence of fellowship
with God, 458. 492.

Deism, 434, 437.

Deistic view of universe, 140, 191, 265.

Denney, James, 157.

Depravity, total, 294.

Descartes, 73, 131.

Design, the argument from, 126.

Disciples, view of, as to baptism, 383.

Dispensations, 147, 223.

Divorce, Old Testament law of, 146

Docetae, 177.

Dods, Marcus, 152.

Dorner, 96, 189, 395.

Dualism, 221, 253, 292, 477, 482.

Ebionites, 42, 177.

Education and regeneration, 381.

Election: of Israel, 239, 341; God's ini
tiative in salvation, 338-358; of indi
viduals and families, 340, 344, 350, 433;
and foreseen faith, 343; defined, 347;
reasons for, 438; not by partiality, 349.
353J to widen sphere of salvation, 350;

506]

Index

for strategic purposes, 35,2; objections
to, 353-

Environment, 258, 301.

Eschatology: indispensable in religion,
98; in the ideal of God's kingdom, 101;
discussed in detail, 439-5°3; of the Old
Testament, 445; of the New Testament,
448; chronology of, uncertain, 455, 463.

Eternal, meaning of the word in the
ology, 495.

Eternity, defined, 225.

Ethics: relation of Christian experience
to, 91; in the lower religions, 97; and
the personality of God, 217; ground of,
235-

Eucken, Prof., 193^-

Eutychians, 178.

Evil, alleged phase of process of develop
ment, 254.

Evolution: alleged key to meaning of the
world, 22; and utilitarianism, 91; and
argument from design, 127, 129; and
doctrine of creation, 252; Christian,
256; salvation by, 286; and regenera
tion, 381; and spiritual sonship, 406.

Exile, 149.

Experience, Christian: and doctrine, 1-34;
denned, 18; related to objective fact,
20; in Gospels and Epistles, 24; deals
with the greatest of realities, 25; neces
sary to understand theology, 27; as
sumptions of the argument from, 49;
analysis of, 50; synthetic unity of, 54;
psychological aspects of, 56; adjust
ment of relations between man and
God, 58; varieties of, 59, 76, 87; in
dispensable elements in, 60; how
knowledge arises in, 67; elements of
knowledge in, 68; involves highest
moral conception of God, 76; relation
of, to ethics, 91; elevates ethical ideal,
92; and comparative religion, 94; in re
lation to philosophy, 103; redemptive
power of Christ in, i63f., 169; and the
person of Christ, 196; and the Trinity,
210-212; and doctrine of creation, 251;
and divine Providence, 266; solution of
the problem of sin through, 299; atone
ment fundamental in, 304; and the
principle of substitution, 327; in re
generation, 388; and justification, 393;
and perfectionism, 430; and immortal
ity, 444.

Faith: and intellectual assent, 10; a fun
damental need, 13, 287; and repentance,

man's attitude in redemption, 20, 52;
does not need mathematical proof, 25;
justification by, 28; bond between man
and God, 34, 55; articles of, 40; im
plicit, 40, 142; and the virgin birth, 42;
subjective, 77; as organ of knowledge,
80; and knowledge, 242; and doctrine,
243; and account of the universe, 273;
justification by, in teaching of Paul,
342; election and foreseen, 342; lack
of, supreme sin, 367; and order of sal
vation, 368; defined, 371; and baptism,
384; condition of salvation, 391; son-
ship by, 406; and sanctification, 420.

Faithfulness defined, 241.

Fall of man, 282, 284.

Fatherhood of God, 53, 175, 181, 183,
193, 198, 209, 274, 285, 287, 315, 394'
401.

Fetishism, 36.

Flesh, the, as the seat of sin, 291, 421.

Foreknowledge, 227, 343.

Foreordination: and human freedom, 266;
and salvation, 339, 343.

Forgiveness: pronounced by Christ, 43,
158; a spiritual necessity, 52; not for
the impenitent, 54, 371; by death of
Christ, 314; repeated, 395.

Freedom, moral, 51, 54, 62, 75, 139, 17.',
175, 192, 226f., 250, 254, 259, 268, 28.3,
348, 438, 481, 501.

Friend, divine, 63.

Future, need of doctrine of, 441.

Gehenna, 459.

Gentile origin of birth stories, 42.

Geology, 273.

Glorification, 343, 393-

Gnostics, 42, 177, 254, 281.

God: science of, i; sovereignty of, 5,
338; direct knowledge of, 7, 4of., 121,
134: redemptive experience of, 8; as a
person, 14, 170, 217; value-judgment of,
14; love and righteousness, 23; argu
ments for existence of, 29; as Father,
Son, and Spirit, 30, 71; sources of
knowledge of, 38; uniquely revealed
in Christ, 43; threefold knowledge of,
48; fatherhood of (see "Fatherhood of
God ") ; image of, in .man, 54, (see
"Man"); the desire for, 57, 79; in
tellectual search for, 62; anthropomor
phic conception of, jgi., 96; belief in,
necessary to ethical theory, 92; idea of,
in ethnic religions and in Judaism, 96;

507

Index

as moral character, 97; providence of,

98, 101, no, 265-280; immanence of,

99, 1 02, 225; Christian theistic view of,
122; proofs of existence of, 124; exist
ence of, a necessity for self-realization
of man, 135; can communicate with
man, 138; represented as vindictive,
146; growth of idea of, 148; relations
of Christ to, 163; Christ is, 167; not
exhausted in creation, 182; unity of,
and the Trinity, 205, 212, 249; needs an
object of love, 208; eternally ethical,
209; of our Lord Jesus Christ, 214-250;
definition of, 214; attributes of, 222,
242, and personality of, 243; love of,
235; truth of, 240; as Creator, 251;
method of, in creation, 263; opportunity
of, in fall of man, 284; reaction of,
against sin, 296, 323; immanent in the
race by incarnation, 320; attributes of,
in the atonement, 335; development of
gracious purpose of, 340; limited by
moral ends, 348, 355; not partial in his
grace, 353; and the hardening of the
heart, 356; and the Holy Spirit, 359;
goodness of, and repentance, 370; and
the act of faith, 372; and regeneration,
385; and holiness, 417; and persever
ance, 435; in Christ the final Judge,
478; the nature of, and restorationism,
499; and men's freedom, 502.

Gordon, A. J., 432.

Gospel: records, 6; alleged false elements
in, 21 ; burden of, 50; human response
to, 51; adaptation of, 60; call to re
pentance and faith, 61; universality of,
342, 356.

Governmental theory of atonement, 307.

Grace: not taught by natural theology,
38; revealed in Christ, 43; revealed in
self-emptying of Christ, 183; defined by
contrasts, 239; opportunity of, in fall of
man, 284; and the consciousness of sin,
299; personal method of, 345; work of,
in salvation, 359; the Holy Spirit and
means of, 362; necessity for means of,
363; correlative of faith, 376; crown
ing work of, 408; and sin, 427; and
perseverance, 435.

Greece, 96, 269, 351.

Grotius, Hugo, 307, 330.

Guilt and penalty, 295.

H

Hades, 459, 462, 496.
Haerjng, Theodore, 84.

Hard-shellism, 362.

Harnack, 333.

Heart, hardening the, 356.

Heaven, 483.

Hegel, 254.

Hegelianism, 192.

Hell: discussed in detail, 488; and moral
freedom, 501.

Heredity, 258, 263, 268f., 293, 296, 301,
481.

Hesiod, 96.

Holiness: defined, 229; among divine at
tributes, 245; and sovereignty, 267.

Holy Spirit: guide of Bible writers, 3, 27;
work of, in believers, 4f., 9, 159, 211,
23l> 366, 407, 413; continues Christ's
redemptive work, 20; need of, in theo
logical study, 34; completes idea of
God, 101; work of, in revelation, 143,
145. isof. ; gift of Christ, 158; and the
Trinity, 203-213; relation of, to Jesus,
204; a person, 205; raised Christ from
the dead, 261; completes process of di
vine immanence, 321; intercession of,
337? personal work of, in salvation,
346, 359J and God, 359; and Christ,
360; in relation to man, 361; in re
generation, 378, 387; and sanctification,
420, 423.

Homer, 96.

Hope: filial, 53; conviction of, by the
Spirit, 367.

Huxley, 109.

Idealism: makes philosophic principle es
sence of religion, 36; criticized, no,
130; and the theory of causation, 125;
logical outcome of intellectual effort,
194; and Trinitarian teaching, 212;
and the doctrine of creation, 254; and
immortality, 260, 441.

Idealists, 193.

Idolatry, 289.

Illumination distinguished from inspira
tion, 143.

Imagination, 346.

Immanence: divine, 99, 102, 225; and
transcendence, 116, 173, 265, 437; exag
gerated doctrine of, 139; rises to a new
level in humanity, 186; of the Trinity,
206, 209; atonement and, 320.

Immensity defined, 225.

Immortality: a reasoned, 63; and physical
science, 84; and eschatology, 98; in
ferred by natural religion, 139; and
modern thought, 193; denied, 254; ar-

508

Inde:

gument for, 260; vague idea of, 364;
need of doctrine of, 441; evidence for,
442; conditional, 491.

Immutability defined, 223.

Incarnation: self -disclosure of God, 23;
not abrupt disturbance of order of na
ture, 170, 187; necessary, 171; com
plete self-impartation of God, 173;
made possible by creation of man, 18^;
divine self-limitation, 183, 238; psy
chology of, 185; entrance into human
conditions, 186-189; objections to, 190;
alleged to be unthinkable, 192; and
meaning of the universe, 193; and the
subconscious mind, 199; and the Trin
ity, 208; not a change in God's pur
pose, 224; -God's love in the, 237, 248;
made Christ one with the race, 309,
315; and grace for all, 34 r; and need
for means of grace, 364; and annihila-
tionism, 494.

India, 96.

Infants: salvation of, 286, 301, 383, 503;
baptism of, 375.

Inspiration, theories of, 143.

Intellectualism, false, 4, n.

Intercession: of Christ, 44, 336; of the
Holy Spirit, 337.

Intermediate state, the: discussed, 459;
not the final state of believers, 461.

Interpretation, spiritual, 29.

Intuition and argument for existence of
God, 132.

Israel, 141, 145-150, 172, 237, 239, 266f.,
269, 279, 289, 341, 352, 354, 401, 431,
445, 448.

J

James, William, 57, 89, 93, 193, iQS-
Jealous, meaning of, in Old Testament,

237-

Jesus Christ: historical revelation of God,
4f., ii, 15, 2if., 41, 47, 50, 165, 17:.-,
210, 238; relation of, to Christian ex
perience, 6; deity of, 8, 160, 167-202;
religion of, real, autonomous, free, 9;
value- judgment of, 14; in Christian
experience, 19; mediates fellowship
with God, 28; sinlessness of, 43, 259;
Redeemer of men, 44, 176; superhis-
toric, 45, 47; supernatural, not elimi
nated from the New Testament, 46;
atoning work of, 55, 234; sin-bearer
and moral goal, 64; objective revelation
in, 78; completes idea of revelation,
100; unique revelation of God, 137, 157;
and Old Testament, 151; supreme reve

lation of God, 154-166, 214-250; doc
trine of person of, 155, 163, 177, 186;
key to doctrine, 166; human and divine
elements in, 176; preexistence of, 180;
life of, continuous with life of God,
184; stages in reascent of, 187; views
of, in modern thought, 193; rival the
ories of the person of, 195; revealed
by his work, 202; preexistence of, and
the Trinity, 207; natural and spiritual
relationship of, to the human race, 285,
309, 315, 329; saving work of, 303-337;
embodiment of moral ideal, 320; inter
cession of, 336; and the Holy Spirit,
360; supreme means of grace, 364; and
conviction by the Spirit, 367; and the
act of faith, 372; doctrine of, and re
generation, 386; mediates blessings, 408;
rmion with, 409; and doctrine of last
things, 445 ; prediction of, concerning
the future, 453; second coming of, 462;
the final Judge, 478; central in por
trayals of heaven, 486; preincarnate ac
tivity of, 498; teaching of, and restora-
tionism, 501.

John, theology of, 2.

Judaism, 94, 96, 98, 100.

Judge, supreme, 57f., 63.

Judgment, the: return of Christ to, 196;
conviction of, by the Spirit, 204; and
conviction of sin, 367; and the day of
the Lord, 446; viewed with suspicion,
449; discussed in detail, 478; the prin
ciple of, 490.

Justice, 246, 296.

Justification: by faith, material principle
of the Reformation, 28; in relation to
divine forgiveness, 52; necessity of, 54;
does not give Hat righteousness 55,
396; procured by atonement, 332; by
faith, in Paul's teaching, 342 ; and re
generation, 387; defined, 389; and
Christian experience, 393; objection to
doctrine of, 396; and sanctification,
420.

K

Kant, Immanuel, philosophy of, 7, 108,
117, i33, 202, 226.

Kenotic theories, 184.

King, Christ as, 303.

Kingdom of God: and central meaning of
the gospel, 28; defined, 91; goal of
Christ's activity, 165, 272; and Provi
dence, 266; advance of, through mira
cles, 270; how constituted 287; Christ's
predictions of, 303; of human relations,

[509]

Index

355; and the social ideal, 424; and last
things, 445; and catastrophic elements
in last things, 452; coming of, 456; and
expectation of Christ's return, 465; de
mands the judgment, 481 f.; and restora-
tionism, 499.

Knowledge: limitations of, 7, 14; obedi
ence an organ of, 34, 80; definition of,
35; sources of religious, 38; funda
mental postulates of all, 50; coming
through Christian experience, 67; the
certainty yielded by Christian, 72;
Christian, and other forms of, 82; ag
nosticism and limitations of, 108;
through experience, 194; faith a form
of, 374; regeneration and problem of,
389; endless growth of, in heaven, 487.

Languages, common origin of, 268.

Law: natural, 84; prevalence of, in sub
jective religious life, 88; uniformity of
natural, 107; footprints of God in nat
ural, 129; natural, in preservation of
the universe, 265; moral, in history, 269;
natural, and miracles, 270; transgres
sion of, as essence of sin, 288, 292;
of sin and death, 318; satisfied by death
of Christ, 322; and salvation by faith,
377; moral, contrasted with physical,
480.

Lee, G. S., 249.

Legalism, Jewish, in writings of Paul.
312, 326, 332, 397.

Logos, 161, 177, 181, 198, 279, 285.

Love: not taught by natural theology,
38; to God as Father, 53; moral im
pulse to, 63; of holiness, 140; God is,
171, 199; relations of, complete God's
personality, 175; mobility of redeeming,
183; apex of divine attributes, 209; and
holiness, 230; defined, 235; place of,
among attributes of God, 244, 339; and
sovereignty, 267; operating in penalty,
296; motive of atonement, 313; and
service, 328.

M

Mackintosh, H. R., 157.

Man: nature of, makes theology neces
sary, 16; combines reason, will, and
feeling, 36; and nature, 38; in relation
to objective reality, 49; bears divine
image, 54, 218, 257, 285, 404; whole
spiritual nature of, aroused in redemp
tion, 62, 67, 194: incorrigibly religious,

103; the Bible and intellectual life of,
149; approach of, to God direct, 152;
creation of, 255; climax of nature, 255,
260, 266; opportunity of, in the fall,
284; salvation of, end of atonement,
314; and personal method of grace, 345;
in relation to the Holy Spirit, 361; in
curably religious, 363; in repentance,
369; and reality of sin, 399; and the
divine Fatherhood, 401 ; the nature of,
and restorationism, 499.

Manicheans, 177.

Materialism criticized, 109, 130, 171, 253.

Matter: and God, 216, 253; and spirit,
254, 260; without moral quality, 282.

Maurice, F. D., 310.

Mercy defined, 239, 246.

Messiahship of Jesus, 189, 196, 303.

Messianic idea in Scripture, g8f., TOT,
i54f., 169, 203. 446, 448.

Metaphysics: without license, 5; in philos
ophy of Comte, 12; and theology, 123;
and the Trinity, 206, 213.

Middle Ages, 40.

Millennium, the question as to, 466.

Mind and brain not convertible, 87, 110,
260, 444.

Miracle: continuous, 172; in nature and
man, 103.

Miracles: and physical science, 7, 271; of
New Testament, 8; of temporary use,
23; of Jesus, 149, 158, 195; and work
of the Spirit, 204; and redemption, 224;
place of, in providence, 270.

Missions: discover race unity, 268; pas
sion for, and union with Christ, 415.

Modern thought, 192.

Mohammedanism, 443.

Monophysites, 178.

Monotheism, 95, 97, 100, 177, 191, 205.

Moral argument for existence of God,
133-

Moral influence theory of atonement, 308.

Morality: supreme standard of, 117;
Christian experience dynamic for reali
zation of, 12 1 ; growth of forms of, 145;
and substitution, 328.

Mutation theory of progress, 129, 256.

Mysticism: examined, 14; forms of, 87;
of the practical life, 362.

X

Natural selection, biological expression of

election, 354.
Nature: and man, 38; a unity objectively

real, 49, 67, 90; interpreted by person-

[510]

Index

alisra, 115; agreement between constitu
tion of, and mental constitution of man,
131; and God, 220; finds climax in
man, 255, 260; and the supernatural,
272; problem of meaning of, 363; and
regeneration, 387; and the movements
of grace, 452; want of adjustment in,
due to sin, 477, 480.

Nazareth, 43.

Necessity: rule of, 254, 270; of atone
ment, 330.

Neo-Hegelianism, 192.

Nestorians, 177, 186.

New Testament: source of theology, 2;
source of knowledge of historical
Christ, 4, 6; miracles of, 8; not shaped
by ethnic religions, 21; in relation to
the Old, 28; object of, 30; idea of be
lief in, 40; representation of Jesus, 41;
and the supernatural Jesus, 46; com
pletes record of revelation, 47.

Nicaea, 177.

Obedience: an organ of knowledge, 34,

80; of Christ, 317.
Old Testament: source of theology, 2;

in relation to the New, 28; as source

of birth stories in the Gospels, 42;

record of preliminary revelation, 47.
Omnipotence: defined, 228, 249; limited

by men's moral freedom, 355.
Omnipresence defined, 225.
Omniscience defined, 226, 240.
Ontological argument for existence of

God, 130.
Ordinances, the, a means in salvation,

346, 363, 409-
Overbelief, 89.

Pantheism: evils of, 14; denies need of
forgiveness, 52; teaches reabsorption in
the All, 70; in India, 96; tendency of
heathen faiths to, 99; and personalism,
114, 122, 207; fails to distinguish be
tween right and wrong, 117; cancels
conception of truth, 118; denies possi
bility of revelation, 138; reduces all to
miracle, 193; and doctrine of creation,
254, 265; idealistic, 282; and work of
the Spirit, 362; and regeneration, 384;
theory of despair, 388; and union with
Christ, 413; and perseverance, 433, 437;
and immortality, 441 ; and the final
judgment, 482.

Paraclete, 360.

Paradise, 459.

Parousia, 456.

Patriotism, 427.

Patristic view of atonement, 306.

Paul, theology of, 2, 312, 326, 332, 397.

Pedagogy, divine, 147.

Penalty: and guilt, 295; according M
light, 301; degrees of, 503.

Penance, 394.

Pentecost, baptism of the Spirit, 204, 211.

Perfection contrasted with original sin-
lessness, 259.

Perfectionism, 429.

Perseverance: and regeneration, 387; a
fruit of faith, 393; and justification,
396; defined, 432.

Person, in the Trinity, 206.

Personalism: philosophy of, stated and
defended, 112; upholds conception of
truth, 118; and Christian theism, 122;
and monistic systems generally, 122;
and the theory of causation, 125.

Personalists, 193.

Personality: in interpretation of the uni
verse, 13; and limitation, 14, 218; only
adequate medium to reveal God, 22, 70
183, 192; human, 50; elements of, 6--
transition from natural to regenerate
63; makes man superior to nature, no
crown of revelation of God, 170; in
volves freedom, 194, 217; multiple, 200;
of God, 217; as principle in account of
universe, 273; and substitution, 328.

Pessimism, 388.

Philo, 161, 198.

Philology, comparative, 268.

Philosophy: of Kant, 7, 108, 117, 133,
202, 226; in relation to Christian ex
perience, 103; rise of various types of,
107, 363; argument from history of,
118; confirms method of Jesus, 194;
and regeneration, 388.

Physics, 273.

Physiology, 268, 273.

Pluralism, 192, 388, 482.

Polytheism, 96, 221.

Positive philosophy examined, i2f.

Postmillennialism, 466f.

Prayer: instinct of, 119; and God's pur
pose, 192, 224, 274, 348; and faith, 374;
for the dead, 461.

Predestination, 268, 338, 433.
Preexistence: of Christ, 162, 179^-. 191.
197, 207; of souls, 262.

Premillennialism, 466f.
Preservation of the universe, 265.
Priest, Christ as, 303.

Index

Probation, second, 495.

Procession of the Spirit, 359.

Proof-texts, old use of, 30.

Prophet, Christ as, 303.

Prophets: medium of revelation, 97, 138,
142, 145, i49f., 172, 203, 364; the
moral sense in the messages of, 418;
and eschatology, 445.

Propitiation, 304, 318, 324.

Protestantism and the Bible, 10.

Providence: related to Christian experi
ence, 19; in the development of his
tory, 98, 101, no, 116; purposive, 149;
discussion of, 265-280; and physical
law, 267; special, 269; and salvation,
338.

Psychology: recognizes obedience as or
gan of knowledge, 34; point of contact
between, and the Bible, 36; and knowl
edge, 39; of religion, 39, 48, 59, 86, 93,
141, 143, 168, 199; and Christian ex
perience, 56; and eschatology, 98; field
of, 104; and divine Providence, 119; of
incarnation, 185; and personal terms in
religion, 217; of the will, 234; and unity
of the race, 268.

Punishment: theories of, 296; eternal,
theories which deny, 491; in view of
restorationism, 499.

Purgatory, 395, 461.

Ransom, Christ's death as a, 304, 306.

Rationalism, 93, 198.

Rationalistic criterion of truth, 213.

Rationality as principle in account of uni
verse, 273.

Real presence, 363.

Reason: unifies theology, 2; and faith,
13; internal factor of knowledge, 35f. ;
abstract, 39; in the discovery of truth,
49; and the facts of the Christian life,
64; pure, 1 06; truths inexplicable to,
192; immanent everywhere, 194; appeal
of grace to, 346.

Reasoning, deductive, 7.

Reconciliation: in Christian teaching, 99;
atonement as, 304; through Christ as
Mediator, 498.

Redemption: aim of religion, 37; growth
of idea of, 99; culminates in Christ,
101; and argument for the existence of
God, 126; atonement as, 304; and elec
tion, 338.

Reformation: watchword of, 10; material
principle of, 28.

Regeneration: in Christian experience, 19,
51; work of the Holy Spirit, 52; possi
bility of, 54; subconscious mind and,
58, 199; Christian consciousness in, 86;
divine agent in, 90; and ethical ideal,
91; by the Spirit, 204, 378; a work of
grace, 344; instantaneous, 349; baptis
mal, 363, 383; and order of salvation,
368; defined, 377; in its larger relations,
385; and spiritual sonship, 406; and
sanctification, 420.

Religion: and theology, i; a universal
fact and value, 13; not to be severed
from practical life, 14; value-judgments
in, 14, 120; experience of God, 15;
communion between God and man, 20;
ethnic, 21, 94, 137, 186, 363; objective
ground of, 23; qualifies for the study
of theology, 32; defined, 36f.; psychol
ogy of, 39, 48, 59, 86, 93, 14-if I43t
1 68, 199; defined as feeling of abso
lute dependence, 61, 126; pathology of,
87; results of scientific study of, 94;
and agnosticism, 108; natural, 139; va
riety of forms of, 363.

Religion, Christian. (See " Christian
ity.")

Religious life, attempts to narrow, 31.

Repentance: faith and, man's attitude in
redemption, 20, 51; necessity of, 54;
not mere reformation, 55; defined, 91,
369; in gospel message, 158; impossible
for infants, 302; produced by atone
ment, 331; gift of God, 344; and or
der of salvation, 368; and baptism, 384.

Restorationism, 494.

Resurrection: and immortality, 261; ethi
cal-mystical, 293, 321, 427; Christ is
the, 412; and sanctification, 422; a re
ligious necessity, 447; viewed with sus
picion, 449; a vital truth, 450; of the
good and evil, 457, 467^; discussed in
detail, 472; of the body, 474.

Resurrection of Christ: as witness to his
deity, 8, 181, 188; related to source of
Christianity, 27; culmination of his re
demptive activity, 44; place of, in early
Christianity, 46; most notable divine act
of deliverance, 149; preliminary to gos
pel preaching, 158, 163; discloses Mes-
siahship, 159; in Paul's gospel, 160; in
theory of Schleiermacher, 196; and the
general resurrection, 473, 475.

Revelation: probability and phases of, 20;
based on objective fact, 21; need of, 22;
purpose of, 24; climax of, in Christ, 43;
objective source of Christian knowl
edge, 83; advance in idea of, 97; an

512]

Index

articulate system, 102; response to hu
man cravings, 121; facts and theories
of, 137-153; contents of, 140; record
of, 142; distinguishing marks of bibli
cal, 145; finds consummation in Christ,
170; and regeneration, 385.

Rewards: in heaven, 485; and punish
ments, 490.

Righteousness: impulse to, from atone
ment, 55; conviction of, by the Spirit,
204; defined, 230, 232, 246; among at
tributes of God, 244, 339; operating in
penalty, 296; and conviction of sin,
367; fiat, 396; in sense of purity, 418.

Ritschl, 15, i94f-, 201 f.

Ritschlianism, 201 f.

Ritschlians, 133.

Rome, 269, 351.

Royce, Prof., i93f.

Sacraments, 346, 362, 395, 409, 413.

Sacrifice: defined, 238; Christ as, 303.

Salvation: of individuals, 342; beginnings
of, 365; order of, 368; works and, 373,
376, 39U by faith, 375, 391, 399; of in
fants, 383, 503; by character, 395.

Sanctification: Christ as, 373; and re
generation, 387; a fruit of faith, 393;
a process subject to variations, 396, 422;
defined, 417; and union with Christ,
419; and salvation, 420; and the moral
ideal, 423; wrong views as to, 427.

Sanday, Prof. William, 199, 201.

Satan, 277, 279^, 283, 306, 324.

Schleiermacher, 3, 61, 126, 196.

Science: passionately demands reality, 9;
disinterestedness of, 84; in agreement
with Scripture, 255, 257.

Science, physical: tends to narrow idea of
truth, 25; laws of, 79; contrasted with
theological, 83; field of, 104, 168;
achievements in, note of Providence,
116; never rises to a spiritual cause,
251; and knowledge by faith, 374; and
immortality, 444.

Sciences, ascending scale of, 241.

Scriptures: present religion as a form of
knowledge, 24; indispensable to Chris
tian theology, 27; interdependence of
Christian experience and, 27; formal
principle of theology, 28; authority of,
143; compared with other religious lit
erature, 147; application of false stand
ards to, 152.

Second Coming: viewed with suspicion,

449; historical sequence of the first,
450; and the predictions of Jesus, 453;
discussed in detail, 462; imminent, 464;
central in view of the future, 471.
Self: development of, 57, 67, 69; struggle
and failure of the natural, 61; renuncia
tion of, 64, 66.
Self-emptying, divine, 182.
Self-existence defined, 223.

Selfishness, as essence of sin, 288.

Self-realization, 486, 502.

Sermon on the Mount, 145, 379.

Sheol, 261, 447, 459.

Sin: consciousness of, 51, 58, 61, 148;
against God as Father, 53; conviction
of, by the Spirit, 204, 394; tendency to,
transmitted, 269, 286, 301 ; discussion
of, 281-302; definition of, 288; conse
quences of, 294; problem of, solved
through Christian experience, 299; ob
jections to biblical doctrine of, 299;
limiting God in his method, 348; per
sistence in, and moral blindness, 357;
and justification, 393; conquest of, and
union with Christ, 415; and the Chris
tian, 419; and grace, 427; and moral
and social decay, 451; defeats true end
of nature, 477; punishment keeps pace
with, 500.

Sin- and guilt-consciousness: sense of un-
worthiness, 299; Christ shared men's,
309; not merely subjective, 333, 399.

Sinlessness of Jesus, 43, 156, 179, 195-
259-

Slavery and the Christian moral ideal,
426.

Socinian theory of atonement, 307.

Socinus, Laelius and Faustus, 307.

Solidarity, 268, 293, 296, 301, 481.

Son of Man, 156, 173.

Sons of God, traits and blessings of, 407.

Sonship: of believers, 53, 69, 102, 175,
183, 193, 198, 261, 274, 287, 315, 387»
401; of Jesus, 157, 175, 181, 183, 189,
193, 198, 209.

Soul and spirit, 257.

Soul-sleeping, doctrine of, 460.

Souls, origin of, 262.

Sovereignty, divine: in one-sided system,
5; inexplicable to reason, 192; not of
sheer will, 249; and Providence, 266;
and moral freedom, 268, 347, 355; and
salvation, 338; a manifestation of grace,
340-

Space in philosophic thought, 225.

Spinoza, 254.

Spirit: and matter, 254, 260; defined, 257;
and body, 263.

2 H

513]

Index

State, the, in the conception of Chris
tianity, 426.

Strong, A. H., 215.

Subconscious mind: and regeneration, 58;
alleged key to the incarnation, 199; and
work of the Holy Spirit, 361.

Subjectivism: perils of, n, 19, 23, 77;
alleged against any proof of God's ex
istence, 135.

Substitution: idea of, in Jewish sacrifices,
99. 327J principle of atonement, 310;
discussed, 324; altar forms of, 333.

Suffering: of God, 238; and Providence,
276; spectacular, 308; of Christ, 317,
323; and union with Christ, 416; relief
from, in heaven, 485.

Suffering Servant, 446.

Supernatural elements in the New Tes
tament, 46.

Supper, Lord's, 363.

Sympathy denned, 238.

Synagogue, 351.

Teleological argument for the existence of
God, 126.

Temptation of Jesus, i87f.

Ten Commandments, 233, 267.

Tennyson, 101, 115.

Tertullian, 461.

Theism and the final judgment, 482.

Theology: and religion, i; defined, 2f. ;
as treated here, 4-12; needs to be re
stated, 10; necessity of, 16; historical,
insufficient, 17; relation of, to truth,
24; closely related to other fields of
science, 25, 39; sources of, 27; ma
terial and formal principles of, 28; and
life, 29; how unified, 29; biblical,
method of, 30; personal qualities neces
sary to study of, 32; natural, 38, 43;
and metaphysics, 123.

Theory: decried, 15; another word for
meaning, 16.

Time in philosophic thought, 225.

Traducianism, 263.

Transcendence and immanence, 116, 139,
173, 225, 437.

Trichotomy, 177.

Trinities, ethnic, 211.

Trinity: place of, in system of theology,
29; in Christian experience, 71, 21 if. ;
doctrine of, develops with perfecting
of the idea of religion, 102; charge of
tritheism made against, 191; and the
Holy Spirit, 203-213; religious value
of doctrine of, 210; and ethnic religion,

21 1 ; and the Angel of the Covenant,
279; fallacies about, 311.

Tritheism, 191.

Truth: relation of, to theology, 24; how
discovered, 39; objective reality in sub
jective experience of, 77; and holiness,
231 ; defined, 240.

Type-phenomenon, 130.

Typology, 98, 101.

U

Unconditioned, as theological term, 221.

Unitarians, 307.

Unity of the race, 268.

Universalism, 402.

Universalists, 495.

Universe: unsatisfactory knowledge of, 7,
12; suggestions of personality in, 22;
rational interpretation of, 106, 213; an
impersonal, 119; grounded in reason,
131; deistic view of, 140; Christ in re
lation to, 1 60; interpretations of, 170;
and God, 225, 228; creation of, 251,
265; physical and spiritual, 257; ra
tional and religious account of, 272.

" Universe, A Pluralistic," 93.

Utilitarianism, 91, 235, 267, 335.

Value-judgments: theory of, 14; in re
ligion, 120; and the person of Christ,
201.

Values, religious: verified, 73; idea of,
overdone, 87; and the Trinity, 210.

" Varieties of Religious Experience, The,"
89, i95-

Virgin birth, 41.

Virgin Mary, 41.

Vision, 87.

w

War and the Christian spirit, 427.

Will, the: freedom of, 62; effect of, on
wills of others, 150; of Christ, 178;
possibility of initiative through, 192,
481; of God, 219, 234, 339; an originat
ing cause, 252, 258; of man, and ir
resistible grace, 344; and the old man,
422; determinative of character, 500.

Wisdom of God, 242.

Works and salvation, 373, 376, 39* •

World-views, modern, 106, 108.

Worship, a means of grace, 363.

Wrath of God, 233, 323.

DATE DUE